A Simulation Based Evaluation of Sample Size Methods for Biomarker Studies


  • Mei-Yin C. Polley Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905
  • Kristen M. Cunanan Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center




Sample size methods, biomarker study, prognostic biomarker, predictive biomarker, survival data.


Cancer researchers are often interested in identifying biomarkers that are indicative of poor outcomes (prognostic biomarkers) or response to specific therapies (predictive biomarkers). In designing a biomarker study, the first statistical issue encountered is the sample size requirement for adequate detection of a biomarker effect. In biomarker studies, the desired effect size is typically larger than those targeted in therapeutic trials and the biomarker prevalence is rarely near the optimal 50%. In this article, we review sample size formulas that are routinely used in designing therapeutic trials. We then conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performances of these methods when applied to biomarker studies. In particular, we examine the impact that deviations from certain statistical assumptions (i.e., biomarker positive prevalence and effect size) have on statistical power and type I error. Our simulation results indicate that when the true biomarker prevalence is close to 50%, all methods perform well in terms of power regardless of the magnitude of the targeted biomarker effect. However, when the biomarker positive prevalence rate deviates from 50%, the empirical power based on some existing methods may be substantially different from the nominal power, and this discrepancy becomes more profound for large biomarker effects. The type I error is maintained close to the 5% nominal level in all scenarios we investigate, although there is a slight inflation as the targeted effect size increases. Based on these results, we delineate the range of parameters within which the use of some sample size methods may be sufficiently robust.


[1] Henry LN, Hayes DF. Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. The Oncologist 2006; 11(6): 541- 552. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.11-6-541
[2] Polley M-YC, Freidlin B, Korn EL, Conley BA, Abrams JS, Mc-Shane LM. Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2013; 105(22): 1677-1683. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt282
[3] Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(21): 1446-1452. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp335
[4] Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, LBaehner F, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T, Hiller W, Fisher ER, Wickerham L, Bryant J, Wolmark N. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifentreated, node-negative breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2004; 10(351): 2817-2826. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041588
[5] Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer Jr, CE, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006; 24(23): 3726-3734. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7985
[6] Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC Jr. American society of clinical oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007; 25(33): 5287-5312. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364
[7] Taube SE, Clark GM, Dancey JE, McShane LM, Sigman CC, Gutman SI. A perspective on challenges and issues in biomarker development and drug and biomarker codevelopment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(21): 1453-1463. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp334
[8] Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: Design issues. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010; 102(3): 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp477
[9] Subramanian J, Simon R. Gene expression{based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: Ready for clinical use? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010; 102(7): 464- 474. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq025
[10] Sargent D, Mandrekar S. Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers. Clinical Trials 2013; 10(5): 647 -652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513497125
[11] Polley M-YC, Polley EC, Huang EP, Freidlin B, Simon R. Two-stage adaptive cutoff design for building and validating a prognostic biomarker signature. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33(29): 5097-5110. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6310
[12] Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula for the proportionalhazards regression model. Biometrics 1983; 39(2): 499-503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531021
[13] Schoenfeld D. The asymptotic properties of nonparametric tests for comparing survival distributions. Biometrika 1981; 68(1): 316-319. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/68.1.316
[14] Rubinstein LV, Gail MH, Santner TJ. Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observation. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1981; 34(9): 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(81)90007-2
[15] George SL Desu MM. Planning the size and duration of a clinical trial studying the time to some critical event. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1974; 27(1): 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(74)90004-6
[16] Hsieh FY, Lavori PW. Sample-size calculations for the cox proportional hazards regression model with nonbinary covariates. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21(6): 552-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00104-5
[17] Peterson B, George SL. Sample size requirements and length of study for testing interaction in a 2 xK factorial design when time-to-failure is the outcome. Controlled Clinical Trials 1993; 14(6): 511-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(93)90031-8
[18] Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19(4): 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0258(20000229)19:4<441::AID-SIM349>3.0.CO;2-N
[19] Gonen M. Planning for subgroup analysis: a case study of treatment-marker interaction in metastatic colorectal cancer. Controlled Clinical Trials 2003; 24(4): 355-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00006-0
[20] Polley M-Y. Power estimation in biomarker studies where events are already observed. Clinical Trials 2017; 14(6): 621- 628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774517723830
[21] Cook TD, DeMets DL. Introduction to statistical methods for clinical trials.Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2013.
[22] Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. Boca Raton, Fla.: Chapman & Hall/CRC, third ed., 2014.




How to Cite

Polley, M.-Y. C., & Cunanan, K. M. (2018). A Simulation Based Evaluation of Sample Size Methods for Biomarker Studies. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 7(4), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2018.07.04.1



General Articles