Visualizing adverse events in clinical trials using correspondence analysis with R-package visae.
Adverse event
CTCAE
Clinical trials
Correspondence analysis
Data visualization
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 11 2021
09 11 2021
Historique:
received:
16
01
2021
accepted:
30
07
2021
entrez:
10
11
2021
pubmed:
11
11
2021
medline:
24
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Graphical displays and data visualization are essential components of statistical analysis that can lead to improved understanding of clinical trial adverse event (AE) data. Correspondence analysis (CA) has been introduced decades ago as a multivariate technique that can communicate AE contingency tables using two-dimensional plots, while quantifying the loss of information as other dimension reduction techniques such as principal components and factor analysis. We propose the application of stacked CA using contribution biplots as a tool to explore differences in AE data among treatments in clinical trials. We defined five levels of refinement for the analysis based on data derived from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades, domains, terms and their combinations. In addition, we developed a Shiny app built in an R-package, visae, publicly available on Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), to interactively investigate CA configurations based on the contribution to the explained variance and relative frequency of AEs. Data from two randomized controlled trials (RCT) were used to illustrate the proposed methods: NSABP R-04, a neoadjuvant rectal 2 × 2 factorial trial comparing radiation therapy with either capecitabine (Cape) or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) alone with or without oxaliplatin (Oxa), and NSABP B-35, a double-blind RCT comparing tamoxifen to anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. In the R04 trial (n = 1308), CA biplots displayed the discrepancies between single agent treatments and their combinations with Oxa at all levels of AE classes, such that these discrepancies were responsible for the largest portion of the explained variability among treatments. In addition, an interaction effect when adding Oxa to Cape/5-FU was identified when the distance between Cape+Oxa and 5-FU + Oxa was observed to be larger than the distance between 5-FU and Cape, with Cape+Oxa and 5-FU + Oxa in different quadrants of the CA biplots. In the B35 trial (n = 3009), CA biplots showed different patterns for non-adherent Anastrozole and Tamoxifen compared with their adherent counterparts. CA with contribution biplot is an effective tool that can be used to summarize AE data in a two-dimensional display while minimizing the loss of information and interpretation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Graphical displays and data visualization are essential components of statistical analysis that can lead to improved understanding of clinical trial adverse event (AE) data. Correspondence analysis (CA) has been introduced decades ago as a multivariate technique that can communicate AE contingency tables using two-dimensional plots, while quantifying the loss of information as other dimension reduction techniques such as principal components and factor analysis.
METHODS
We propose the application of stacked CA using contribution biplots as a tool to explore differences in AE data among treatments in clinical trials. We defined five levels of refinement for the analysis based on data derived from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades, domains, terms and their combinations. In addition, we developed a Shiny app built in an R-package, visae, publicly available on Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), to interactively investigate CA configurations based on the contribution to the explained variance and relative frequency of AEs. Data from two randomized controlled trials (RCT) were used to illustrate the proposed methods: NSABP R-04, a neoadjuvant rectal 2 × 2 factorial trial comparing radiation therapy with either capecitabine (Cape) or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) alone with or without oxaliplatin (Oxa), and NSABP B-35, a double-blind RCT comparing tamoxifen to anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ.
RESULTS
In the R04 trial (n = 1308), CA biplots displayed the discrepancies between single agent treatments and their combinations with Oxa at all levels of AE classes, such that these discrepancies were responsible for the largest portion of the explained variability among treatments. In addition, an interaction effect when adding Oxa to Cape/5-FU was identified when the distance between Cape+Oxa and 5-FU + Oxa was observed to be larger than the distance between 5-FU and Cape, with Cape+Oxa and 5-FU + Oxa in different quadrants of the CA biplots. In the B35 trial (n = 3009), CA biplots showed different patterns for non-adherent Anastrozole and Tamoxifen compared with their adherent counterparts.
CONCLUSION
CA with contribution biplot is an effective tool that can be used to summarize AE data in a two-dimensional display while minimizing the loss of information and interpretation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34753452
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01368-w
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01368-w
pmc: PMC8579548
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tamoxifen
094ZI81Y45
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180822
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180868
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189867
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Sep 14;107(11):
pubmed: 26374429
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Nov 22;11:155
pubmed: 22108386
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Dec 14;112(12):1266-1274
pubmed: 32091598
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):663-70
pubmed: 27083333
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):781-8
pubmed: 15545678
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Jun;109(3):515-26
pubmed: 17851765
Lancet. 2016 Feb 27;387(10021):857-65
pubmed: 26686960
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Nov 04;12(11):
pubmed: 33158080
Lancet. 2016 Feb 27;387(10021):849-56
pubmed: 26686957
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 11;98(19):10781-6
pubmed: 11535808
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):1069-1073
pubmed: 29579254
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 1;9(2):e024537
pubmed: 30826796
Bioinformatics. 2005 May 15;21(10):2424-9
pubmed: 15746280
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;63(6):638-46
pubmed: 19896800
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011 Sep;4(9):1393-400
pubmed: 21862698
Clin Trials. 2013;10(3):398-406
pubmed: 23690094
Lancet. 2016 Feb 27;387(10021):866-73
pubmed: 26686313
Stat Methods Med Res. 1992;1(1):97-117
pubmed: 1341654
Epidemiol Infect. 2017 Jul;145(10):2161-2165
pubmed: 28506332
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Nov;1(8):1051-9
pubmed: 26270597
Ann Oncol. 2012 Feb;23(2):537-41
pubmed: 21536663
Ann Surg. 2015 Jan;261(1):144-8
pubmed: 24670844
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 25;15(3):e0230737
pubmed: 32210454
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Nov 27;108(4):
pubmed: 26615179
Pharm Stat. 2008 Jan-Mar;7(1):20-35
pubmed: 17323410