PURPOSE: The analysis of longitudinal health-related quality of life measures (HRQOL) can be seriously hampered due to informative drop-out. Random effects models assume Missing At Random and do not take into account informative drop-out. We therefore aim to correct the bias due to informative drop-out. METHODS: Analyses of data from a trial comparing standard-dose and high-dose chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer with respect to long-term impact on HRQOL will serve as illustration. The subscale Physical Function (PF) of the SF36 will be used. A pattern mixture approach is proposed to account for informative drop-out. Patterns are defined based on events related to HRQOL, such as death and relapse. The results of this pattern mixture approach are compared to the results of the commonly used random effects model. RESULTS: The findings of the pattern mixture approach are well interpretable, and different courses over time in different patterns are distinguished. In terms of estimated differences between standard dose and high dose, the results of both approaches are slightly different, but have no consequences for the clinical evaluation of both doses. CONCLUSION: Under the assumption that drop-out is at random within the patterns, the pattern mixture approach adjusts the estimates to a certain degree. This approach accounts in a relatively simple way for informative drop-out.
PURPOSE: The analysis of longitudinal health-related quality of life measures (HRQOL) can be seriously hampered due to informative drop-out. Random effects models assume Missing At Random and do not take into account informative drop-out. We therefore aim to correct the bias due to informative drop-out. METHODS: Analyses of data from a trial comparing standard-dose and high-dose chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer with respect to long-term impact on HRQOL will serve as illustration. The subscale Physical Function (PF) of the SF36 will be used. A pattern mixture approach is proposed to account for informative drop-out. Patterns are defined based on events related to HRQOL, such as death and relapse. The results of this pattern mixture approach are compared to the results of the commonly used random effects model. RESULTS: The findings of the pattern mixture approach are well interpretable, and different courses over time in different patterns are distinguished. In terms of estimated differences between standard dose and high dose, the results of both approaches are slightly different, but have no consequences for the clinical evaluation of both doses. CONCLUSION: Under the assumption that drop-out is at random within the patterns, the pattern mixture approach adjusts the estimates to a certain degree. This approach accounts in a relatively simple way for informative drop-out.
Authors: S Rodenhuis; M Bontenbal; Q G C M van Hoesel; W M Smit; M A Nooij; E E Voest; E van der Wall; P Hupperets; H van Tinteren; J L Peterse; M J van de Vijver; E G E de Vries Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-01-30 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Marijke Bontenbal; Louk V A M Beex; John Wagstaff; Dick J Richel; Marianne A Nooij; Emile E Voest; Pierre Hupperets; Harm van Tinteren; Hans L Peterse; Elisabeth M TenVergert; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mogens Groenvold; Peter M Fayers; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Henning T Mouridsen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ciska Buijs; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Caroline M Seynaeve; Quirinus G C M van Hoesel; Elsken van der Wall; Wim J M Smit; Marianne A Nooij; Emile Voest; Pierre Hupperets; Els M TenVergert; Harm van Tinteren; Pax H B Willemse; Marian J E Mourits; Neil K Aaronson; Wendy J Post; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Suzanne J Baron; Suzanne V Arnold; Matthew R Reynolds; Kaijun Wang; Michael Deeb; Michael J Reardon; James Hermiller; Steven J Yakubov; David H Adams; Jeffrey J Popma; David J Cohen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Carla M Bann; Jamie E Newman; Brenda Poindexter; Katherine Okoniewski; Sara DeMauro; Scott A Lorch; Deanne Wilson-Costello; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen; Catherine Limperopoulos; Kushal Kapse; Jonathan M Davis; Michele Walsh; Stephanie Merhar Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Linda Dirven; Jacob C Reijneveld; Neil K Aaronson; Andrew Bottomley; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Martin J B Taphoorn Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Amélie Anota; Antoine Barbieri; Marion Savina; Alhousseiny Pam; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Franck Bonnetain; Caroline Bascoul-Mollevi Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Aimery De Gramont; Geoffrey Henning; Philippe Rougier; Franck Bonnetain; Thomas Seufferlein Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Na Hu; Bin Cong; Tao Gao; Rong Hu; Yi Chen; Hui Tang; Luyan Xue; Shujin Li; Chunling Ma Journal: Int J Mol Med Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 4.101