  With medical tests becoming increasingly available, concerns about
over-testing and over-treatment dramatically increase. Hence, it is important
to understand the influence of testing on treatment selection in general
practice. Most statistical methods focus on average effects of testing on
treatment decisions. However, this may be ill-advised, particularly for patient
subgroups that tend not to benefit from such tests. Furthermore, missing data
are common, representing large and often unaddressed threats to the validity of
statistical methods. Finally, it is desirable to conduct analyses that can be
interpreted causally. We propose to classify patients into four potential
outcomes subgroups, defined by whether or not a patient's treatment selection
is changed by the test result and by the direction of how the test result
changes treatment selection. This subgroup classification naturally captures
the differential influence of medical testing on treatment selections for
different patients, which can suggest targets to improve the utilization of
medical tests. We can then examine patient characteristics associated with
patient potential outcomes subgroup memberships. We used multiple imputation
methods to simultaneously impute the missing potential outcomes as well as
regular missing values. This approach can also provide estimates of many
traditional causal quantities. We find that explicitly incorporating causal
inference assumptions into the multiple imputation process can improve the
precision for some causal estimates of interest. We also find that bias can
occur when the potential outcomes conditional independence assumption is
violated; sensitivity analyses are proposed to assess the impact of this
violation. We applied the proposed methods to examine the influence of 21-gene
assay, the most commonly used genomic test, on chemotherapy selection among
breast cancer patients.
