OnCo
ideasIdea

Bayesian shrinkage for subgroup claims to stop false 'works in this group' stories

Trials look at dozens of patient subgroups and some will look good by chance. A statistical method that pulls extreme subgroup results toward the overall result would make these claims more honest.

Forest plots of subgroup effects are replaced or accompanied by hierarchical Bayesian shrinkage estimates, in which each subgroup effect is partially pooled toward the overall effect according to its precision. Regulators require shrunken estimates for any subgroup claim in a label and journals require them in publications.

Hypothesis
Shrinkage-based subgroup reporting will reduce the number of subgroup-driven label restrictions or expansions that are later reversed, and will improve replication of subgroup effects in subsequent trials.
Rationale
Naive subgroup estimates are noisy and biased toward extremes when selected; shrinkage is the standard remedy in other fields and would have avoided several well-known oncology subgroup reversals.
What would test it
Re-analyse subgroup claims from past label decisions with shrinkage and check which would have survived; compare with later replication data.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
regulator
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
1
Bottlenecks it attacks
  • Trial design, endpoints and cost · A phase 3 trial takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars, and often answers a question that has already moved on.
  • Failures are hidden · Negative trials, failed drugs and abandoned programmes are rarely published, so the same mistakes are repeated.

Connected

3top