Literature DB >> 21770482

Cautions regarding the fitting and interpretation of survival curves: examples from NICE single technology appraisals of drugs for cancer.

Martin Connock1, Chris Hyde, David Moore.   

Abstract

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has used its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme to assess several drugs for cancer. Typically, the evidence submitted by the manufacturer comes from one short-term randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrating improvement in overall survival and/or in delay of disease progression, and these are the pre-eminent drivers of cost effectiveness. We draw attention to key issues encountered in assessing the quality and rigour of the manufacturers' modelling of overall survival and disease progression. Our examples are two recent STAs: sorafenib (Nexavar®) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and azacitidine (Vidaza®) for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The choice of parametric model had a large effect on the predicted treatment-dependent survival gain. Logarithmic models (log-Normal and log-logistic) delivered double the survival advantage that was derived from Weibull models. Both submissions selected the logarithmic fits for their base-case economic analyses and justified selection solely on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) scores. AIC scores in the azacitidine submission failed to match the choice of the log-logistic over Weibull or exponential models, and the modelled survival in the intervention arm lacked face validity. AIC scores for sorafenib models favoured log-Normal fits; however, since there is no statistical method for comparing AIC scores, and differences may be trivial, it is generally advised that the plausibility of competing models should be tested against external data and explored in diagnostic plots. Function fitting to observed data should not be a mechanical process validated by a single crude indicator (AIC). Projective models should show clear plausibility for the patients concerned and should be consistent with other published information. Multiple rather than single parametric functions should be explored and tested with diagnostic plots. When trials have survival curves with long tails exhibiting few events then the robustness of extrapolations using information in such tails should be tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21770482     DOI: 10.2165/11585940-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  7 in total

Review 1.  Azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia.

Authors:  R Edlin; M Connock; S Tubeuf; J Round; A Fry-Smith; C Hyde; W Greenheld
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  M Connock; J Round; S Bayliss; S Tubeuf; W Greenheld; D Moore
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 3.  Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments.

Authors:  Paul Tappenden; Jim Chilcott; Sue Ward; Simon Eggington; Daniel Hind; Silvia Hummel
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-04       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  Cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Adrian Bagust; Janette Greenhalgh; Angela Boland; Nigel Fleeman; Claire McLeod; Rumona Dickson; Yenal Dundar; Christine Proudlove; Richard Shaw
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Quantification of the completeness of follow-up.

Authors:  Taane G Clark; Douglas G Altman; Bianca L De Stavola
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

Authors:  Pierre Fenaux; Ghulam J Mufti; Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg; Valeria Santini; Carlo Finelli; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Robert Schoch; Norbert Gattermann; Guillermo Sanz; Alan List; Steven D Gore; John F Seymour; John M Bennett; John Byrd; Jay Backstrom; Linda Zimmerman; David McKenzie; Cl Beach; Lewis R Silverman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-02-21       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 91.245

  7 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies.

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Laura Bojke; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of HER2-Targeted Treatment Pathways in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jesse A Sussell; Joshua A Roth; Craig S Meyer; Anita Fung; Svenn A Hansen
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2022-01-30       Impact factor: 3.845

3.  Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study.

Authors:  Béranger Lueza; Audrey Mauguen; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Julia Bonastre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A technique for approximating transition rates from published survival analyses.

Authors:  Markian A Pahuta; Joel Werier; Eugene K Wai; Roy A Patchell; Doug Coyle
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2019-07-01

5.  Impact of limited sample size and follow-up on single event survival extrapolation for health technology assessment: a simulation study.

Authors:  Jaclyn M Beca; Kelvin K W Chan; David M J Naimark; Petros Pechlivanoglou
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Mean overall survival gain with aflibercept plus FOLFIRI vs placebo plus FOLFIRI in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  F Joulain; I Proskorovsky; C Allegra; J Tabernero; M Hoyle; S U Iqbal; E Van Cutsem
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Cost-effectiveness Analysis in R Using a Multi-state Modeling Survival Analysis Framework: A Tutorial.

Authors:  Claire Williams; James D Lewsey; Andrew H Briggs; Daniel F Mackay
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Estimation of Survival Probabilities for Use in Cost-effectiveness Analyses: A Comparison of a Multi-state Modeling Survival Analysis Approach with Partitioned Survival and Markov Decision-Analytic Modeling.

Authors:  Claire Williams; James D Lewsey; Daniel F Mackay; Andrew H Briggs
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 2.583

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.