Literature DB >> 24595585

Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.

K Jack Ishak1, Irina Proskorovsky, Beata Korytowsky, Rickard Sandin, Sandrine Faivre, Juan Valle.   

Abstract

Trials of new oncology treatments often involve a crossover element in their design that allows patients receiving the control treatment to crossover to receive the experimental treatment at disease progression or when sufficient evidence about the efficacy of the new treatment is achieved. Crossover leads to contamination of the initial randomized groups due to a mixing of the effects of the control and experimental treatments in the reference group. This is further complicated by the fact that crossover is often a very selective process whereby patients who switch treatment have a different prognosis than those who do not. Standard statistical techniques, including those that attempt to account for the treatment switch, cannot fully adjust for the bias introduced by crossover. Specialized methods such as rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) models and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses are designed to deal with selective treatment switching and have been increasingly applied to adjust for crossover. We provide an overview of the crossover problem and highlight circumstances under which it is likely to cause bias. We then describe the RPSFT and IPCW methods and explain how these methods adjust for the bias, highlighting the assumptions invoked in the process. Our aim is to facilitate understanding of these complex methods using a case study to support explanations. We also discuss the implications of crossover adjustment on cost-effectiveness results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24595585     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0145-y

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Analysis of progression-free survival in oncology trials: some common statistical issues.

Authors:  Kevin J Carroll
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2007 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.894

2.  Use of progression-free survival as a surrogate marker in oncology trials: some regulatory issues.

Authors:  Aloka Chakravarty; Rajeshwari Sridhara
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2008-02-19       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Survival analyses of randomized clinical trials adjusted for patients who switch treatments.

Authors:  M G Law; J M Kaldor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma : final results and analysis of prognostic factors.

Authors:  Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; Stephane Oudard; Thomas E Hutson; Camillo Porta; Sergio Bracarda; Viktor Grünwald; John A Thompson; Robert A Figlin; Norbert Hollaender; Andrea Kay; Alain Ravaud
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Structural accelerated failure time models for survival analysis in studies with time-varying treatments.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Stephen R Cole; Joseph Margolick; Mardge Cohen; James M Robins
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Analyses adjusting for selective crossover show improved overall survival with adjuvant letrozole compared with tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 study.

Authors:  Marco Colleoni; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Meredith M Regan; Beat Thürlimann; Henning Mouridsen; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Robert Paridaens; István Láng; Ian Smith; Jacquie Chirgwin; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Andrew Wardley; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Issues in using progression-free survival when evaluating oncology products.

Authors:  Thomas R Fleming; Mark D Rothmann; Hong Laura Lu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.

Authors:  James P Morden; Paul C Lambert; Nicholas Latimer; Keith R Abrams; Allan J Wailoo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Evolution of resistance to targeted anti-cancer therapies during continuous and pulsed administration strategies.

Authors:  Jasmine Foo; Franziska Michor
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Bringing in health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness considerations at an early stage of drug development.

Authors:  Bengt Jönsson
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 6.603

2.  Survival adjusting for crossover: phase 3 study of ibrutinib vs. chlorambucil in older patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.

Authors:  Steven Coutre; Alessandra Tedeschi; Tadeusz Robak; Paul M Barr; Carolyn Owen; Osnat Bairey; Jan Burger; Cathy Zhou; Lori Styles; Danelle F James; Thomas J Kipps
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 3.  The siren song of bevacizumab: swan song or clarion call?

Authors:  David Schiff; Patrick Y Wen
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 12.300

4.  A Multi-state Model for Designing Clinical Trials for Testing Overall Survival Allowing for Crossover after Progression.

Authors:  Fang Xia; Stephen L George; Xiaofei Wang
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 1.452

5.  Sunitinib: Ten Years of Successful Clinical Use and Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; Andrew Gannon; Robert A Figlin
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2016-11-02

Review 6.  Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available.

Authors:  Catherine Beauchemin; Marie-Ève Lapierre; Nathalie Letarte; Louise Yelle; Jean Lachaine
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Surrogate study endpoints in the era of cancer immunotherapy.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Hamada; Keisuke Kosumi; Yousuke Nakai; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-11

8.  Can contemporary trials of chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer detect overall survival benefit?

Authors:  Sherko Kümmel; Christian Jackisch; Volkmar Müller; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sandra Klawitter; Michael P Lux
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  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

10.  Causal inference for long-term survival in randomised trials with treatment switching: Should re-censoring be applied when estimating counterfactual survival times?

Authors:  N R Latimer; I R White; K R Abrams; U Siebert
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.