Literature DB >> 30035644

Application of multi-state models in cancer clinical trials.

Jennifer G Le-Rademacher1, Ryan A Peterson1,2, Terry M Therneau1, Ben L Sanford3, Richard M Stone4, Sumithra J Mandrekar1.   

Abstract

Background/aims The goal of this article is to illustrate the utility of multi-state models in cancer clinical trials. Our specific aims are to describe multi-state models and how they differ from standard survival methods, to illustrate how multi-state models can facilitate deeper understanding of the treatment effect on multiple paths along the disease process that patients could experience in cancer clinical trials, to explain the differences between multi-state models and time-dependent Cox models, and to briefly describe available software to conduct such analyses. Methods Data from 717 newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients who enrolled in the CALGB 10603 trial were used as an illustrative example. The current probability-in-state was estimated using the Aalen-Johansen estimator. The restricted mean time in state was calculated as the area under the probability-in-state curves. Cox-type regression was used to evaluate the effect of midostaurin on the various clinical paths. Simulation was conducted using a newly constructed shiny application. All analyses were performed using the R software. Results Multi-state model analyses of CALGB 10603 suggested that the overall improvement in survival with midostaurin seen in the primary analysis possibly resulted from a higher complete remission rate in combination with a lower risk of relapse and of death after complete remission in patients treated with midostaurin. Simulation results, in a three-state illness-death without recovery model, demonstrate that multi-state models and time-dependent Cox models evaluate treatment effects from different frameworks. Conclusion Multi-state models allow detailed evaluation of treatment effects in complex clinical trial settings where patients can experience multiple paths between study enrollment and the final outcome. Multi-state models can be used as a complementary tool to standard survival analyses to provide deeper insights to the effects of treatment in trial settings with complex disease process.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multi-state model; cancer; clinical trials; survival analysis; time-to-event data

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30035644      PMCID: PMC6133743          DOI: 10.1177/1740774518789098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  12 in total

Review 1.  Multi-state models: a review.

Authors:  P Hougaard
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Multi-state models in epidemiology.

Authors:  D Commenges
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 3.  Multi-state models for event history analysis.

Authors:  Per Kragh Andersen; Niels Keiding
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Interpretability and importance of functionals in competing risks and multistate models.

Authors:  Per Kragh Andersen; Niels Keiding
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models.

Authors:  H Putter; M Fiocco; R B Geskus
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  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

7.  The mstate package for estimation and prediction in non- and semi-parametric multi-state and competing risks models.

Authors:  Liesbeth C de Wreede; Marta Fiocco; Hein Putter
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Blood pressure and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression using multistate marginal structural models in the CRIC Study.

Authors:  Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Andrew J Spieker; Amanda Anderson; Paul Drawz; Michael Fischer; Stephen M Sozio; Harold Feldman; Marshall Joffe; Wei Yang; Tom Greene
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Midostaurin plus Chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia with a FLT3 Mutation.

Authors:  Richard M Stone; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Ben L Sanford; Kristina Laumann; Susan Geyer; Clara D Bloomfield; Christian Thiede; Thomas W Prior; Konstanze Döhner; Guido Marcucci; Francesco Lo-Coco; Rebecca B Klisovic; Andrew Wei; Jorge Sierra; Miguel A Sanz; Joseph M Brandwein; Theo de Witte; Dietger Niederwieser; Frederick R Appelbaum; Bruno C Medeiros; Martin S Tallman; Jürgen Krauter; Richard F Schlenk; Arnold Ganser; Hubert Serve; Gerhard Ehninger; Sergio Amadori; Richard A Larson; Hartmut Döhner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Plotting summary predictions in multistate survival models: probabilities of relapse and death in remission for bone marrow transplantation patients.

Authors:  J P Klein; N Keiding; E A Copelan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  8 in total

1.  Nonparametric tests for transition probabilities in nonhomogeneous Markov processes.

Authors:  Giorgos Bakoyannis
Journal:  J Nonparametr Stat       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 1.231

2.  Multistate models for the natural history of cancer progression.

Authors:  Li C Cheung; Paul S Albert; Shrutikona Das; Richard J Cook
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 9.075

3.  Bootstrapping complex time-to-event data without individual patient data, with a view toward time-dependent exposures.

Authors:  Tobias Bluhmki; Hein Putter; Arthur Allignol; Jan Beyersmann
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Relaxing the assumption of constant transition rates in a multi-state model in hospital epidemiology.

Authors:  Micki Hill; Paul C Lambert; Michael J Crowther
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Description of the inflammatory bowel disease natural history in Tehran province, Iran: Mixed panel approaches.

Authors:  Meysam Olfatifar; Hamid Asadzadeh Aghdaei; Mohamad Amin Pourhoseingholi; Hedieh Balaii; Saeed Hashemi Nazari; Shabnam Shahrokh; Siamak Sabour; Maria Ivanchuk; Pavlo Ivanchuk; Soheila Khodakarim; Mohammad Reza Zali; Pejman Rohani; Gholamhossein Mehralian
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench       Date:  2021

6.  A multistate model of health transitions in older people: a secondary analysis of ASPREE clinical trial data.

Authors:  Johannes T Neumann; Le T P Thao; Emily Callander; Prudence R Carr; Vazhma Qaderi; Mark R Nelson; Christopher M Reid; Robyn L Woods; Suzanne G Orchard; Rory Wolfe; Galina Polekhina; Jeff D Williamson; James M Trauer; Anne B Newman; Anne M Murray; Michael E Ernst; Andrew M Tonkin; John J McNeil
Journal:  Lancet Healthy Longev       Date:  2022-02-07

Review 7.  The Utility of Multistate Models: A Flexible Framework for Time-to-Event Data.

Authors:  Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Terry M Therneau; Fang-Shu Ou
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2022-06-29

8.  The added value of multi-state modelling in a randomized controlled trial: The HOVON 102 study re-analyzed.

Authors:  Katerina Bakunina; Hein Putter; Jurjen Versluis; Eva A S Koster; Bronno van der Holt; Markus G Manz; Dimitri A Breems; Bjorn T Gjertsen; Jacqueline Cloos; Peter J M Valk; Jakob Passweg; Thomas Pabst; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Bob Löwenberg; Jan J Cornelissen; Liesbeth C de Wreede
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 4.452

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.