Literature DB >> 15211598

Adjusting for differential proportions of second-line treatment in cancer clinical trials. Part I: structural nested models and marginal structural models to test and estimate treatment arm effects.

Takuhiro Yamaguchi1, Yasuo Ohashi.   

Abstract

In randomized trials, post-randomization variables such as compliance, prescription of alternative treatments and so on are usually ignored to compare treatment arms. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis is a standard approach but it does not adjust for those variables. However, we may need to evaluate treatment arm effects that have the desired causal interpretation. Previously proposed methods such as time-dependent Cox model may not properly adjust for post-randomization variables and may produce biased results. Alternatively, we propose to use two causal models, structural nested models and marginal structural models. The two models appropriately adjust for such variables. We apply these models to adjust for differential proportions of post-randomization second-line treatment in cancer clinical trials. With sufficient care to several assumptions, these methods, especially structural nested failure time models with randomized analyses, are useful to take the influence of second-line treatment into account and to test and estimate the direct treatment arm effect. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15211598     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1816

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  12 in total

1.  Post-study therapy as a source of confounding in survival analysis of first-line studies in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Vera D Zietemann; Tibor Schuster; Thomas Hg Duell
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Colon cancer survival with herbal medicine and vitamins combined with standard therapy in a whole-systems approach: ten-year follow-up data analyzed with marginal structural models and propensity score methods.

Authors:  Michael McCulloch; Michael Broffman; Mark van der Laan; Alan Hubbard; Lawrence Kushi; Donald I Abrams; Jin Gao; John M Colford
Journal:  Integr Cancer Ther       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 3.279

3.  Adjusting for the Confounding Effects of Treatment Switching-The BREAK-3 Trial: Dabrafenib Versus Dacarbazine.

Authors:  Nicholas R Latimer; Keith R Abrams; Mayur M Amonkar; Ceilidh Stapelkamp; R Suzanne Swann
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-06-03

4.  Application of the Marginal Structural Model to Account for Suboptimal Adherence in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  James Rochon; Manjushri Bhapkar; Carl F Pieper; William E Kraus
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-11-03

5.  Adjusting Overall Survival Estimates after Treatment Switching: a Case Study in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Konstantina Skaltsa; Cristina Ivanescu; Shevani Naidoo; Stefan Holmstrom; Nicholas R Latimer
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.493

Review 6.  Methods for time-varying exposure related problems in pharmacoepidemiology: An overview.

Authors:  Laura Pazzagli; Marie Linder; Mingliang Zhang; Emese Vago; Paul Stang; David Myers; Morten Andersen; Shahram Bahmanyar
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.890

7.  Two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: a simulation study investigating the use of inverse probability weighting instead of re-censoring.

Authors:  N R Latimer; K R Abrams; U Siebert
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A novel method to adjust efficacy estimates for uptake of other active treatments in long-term clinical trials.

Authors:  John Simes; Merryn Voysey; Rachel O'Connell; Paul Glasziou; James D Best; Russell Scott; Christopher Pardy; Karen Byth; David R Sullivan; Christian Ehnholm; Anthony Keech
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding.

Authors:  N R Latimer; I R White; K Tilling; U Siebert
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 3.021

10.  Estimating the treatment effect in patients with gastric cancer in the presence of noncompliance.

Authors:  Malihe Safari; Hossein Mahjub; Habib Esmaeili; Sanambar Sadighi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench       Date:  2021
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.