Literature DB >> 30610657

Modeling Covariate-Adjusted Survival for Economic Evaluations in Oncology.

Istvan M Majer1, Jean-Gabriel Castaigne2, Stephen Palmer3, Lucy DeCosta4, Marco Campioni5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In economic evaluations in oncology, adjusted survival should be generated if imbalances in prognostic/predictive factors across treatment arms are present. To date, no formal guidance has been developed regarding how such adjustments should be made. We compared various covariate-adjusted survival modeling approaches, as applied to the ENDEAVOR trial in multiple myeloma that assessed carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Cd) versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd).
METHODS: Overall survival (OS) data and baseline characteristics were used for a subgroup (bortezomib-naïve/one prior therapy). Four adjusted survival modeling approaches were compared: propensity score weighting followed by fitting a Weibull model to the two arms of the balanced data (weighted data approach); fitting a multiple Weibull regression model including prognostic/predictive covariates to the two arms to predict survival using the mean value of each covariate and using the average of patient-specific survival predictions; and applying an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) derived from a Cox proportional hazard model to the baseline risk estimated for Vd.
RESULTS: The mean OS estimated by the weighted data approach was 6.85 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.62-10.70) for Cd, 4.68 years (95% CI 3.46-6.74) for Vd, and 2.17 years (95% CI 0.18-5.06) for the difference. Although other approaches estimated similar differences, using the mean value of covariates appeared to yield skewed survival estimates (mean OS was 7.65 years for Cd and 5.40 years for Vd), using the average of individual predictions had limited external validity (implausible long-term OS predictions with > 10% of the Vd population alive after 30 years), and using the adjusted HR approach overestimated uncertainty (difference in mean OS was 2.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 6.19).
CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted survival modeling based on weighted or matched data approaches provides a flexible and robust method to correct for covariate imbalances in economic evaluations. The conclusions of our study may be generalizable to other settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01568866 (ENDEAVOR trial).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30610657     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0759-6

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


  24 in total

1.  Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  Jasjeet Singh Sekhon; Richard D Grieve
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Retrospective matched-pairs analysis of bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus bortezomib monotherapy in relapsed multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Meletios A Dimopoulos; Robert Z Orlowski; Thierry Facon; Pieter Sonneveld; Kenneth C Anderson; Meral Beksac; Lotfi Benboubker; Huw Roddie; Anna Potamianou; Catherine Couturier; Huaibao Feng; Ozlem Ataman; Helgi van de Velde; Paul G Richardson
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 9.941

4.  Final overall survival results of a randomized trial comparing bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Robert Z Orlowski; Arnon Nagler; Pieter Sonneveld; Joan Bladé; Roman Hajek; Andrew Spencer; Tadeusz Robak; Anna Dmoszynska; Noemi Horvath; Ivan Spicka; Heather J Sutherland; Alexander N Suvorov; Liang Xiu; Andrew Cakana; Trilok Parekh; Jesús F San-Miguel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Susan E Assmann; Laura E Enos; Linda E Kasten
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Multiple myeloma: 2016 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 10.047

7.  Identifying Baseline Covariates for Use in Propensity Scores: A Novel Approach Illustrated for a Non-randomized Study of Recovery High Schools.

Authors:  Emily E Tanner-Smith; Mark W Lipsey
Journal:  Peabody J Educ       Date:  2014-01-01

8.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Extramedullary plasmacytoma in the presence of multiple myeloma: clinical correlates and prognostic relevance.

Authors:  Hai-Fei Chen; Tian-Qin Wu; Zheng-Yang Li; Hong-Shi Shen; Jie-Qing Tang; Wei-Jun Fu; Zhen-Gang Yuan; Jian Hou
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.