Venediktos Kapetanakis1, Thibaud Prawitz2, Michael Schlichting3, K Jack Ishak4, Hemant Phatak5, Mairead Kearney6, John W Stevens7, Agnes Benedict8, Murtuza Bharmal9. 1. Evidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK. venediktos.kapetanakis@evidera.com. 2. Evidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera, London, UK. 3. Global Biostatistics, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. 4. Evidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. US Health Economics and Outcomes Research, EMD Serono, Rockland, MA, USA. 6. Global Evidence and Value Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. 7. Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 8. Evidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera, Budapest, Hungary. 9. Global Evidence and Value Development, EMD Serono, Rockland, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timing of efficacy-related clinical events recorded at scheduled study visits in clinical trials are interval censored, with the interval duration pre-determined by the study protocol. Events may happen any time during that interval but can only be detected during a planned or unplanned visit. Disease progression in oncology is a notable example where the time to an event is affected by the schedule of visits within a study. This can become a source of bias when studies with varying assessment schedules are used in unanchored comparisons using methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. OBJECTIVE: We illustrate assessment-time bias (ATB) in a simulation study based on data from a recent study in second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and present a method to adjust for differences in assessment schedule when comparing progression-free survival (PFS) against a competing treatment. METHODS: A multi-state model for death and progression was used to generate simulated death and progression times, from which PFS times were derived. PFS data were also generated for a hypothetical comparator treatment by applying a constant hazard ratio (HR) to the baseline treatment. Simulated PFS times for the two treatments were then aligned to different assessment schedules so that progression events were only observed at set visit times, and the data were analysed to assess the bias and standard error of estimates of HRs between two treatments with and without assessment-schedule matching (ASM). RESULTS: ATB is highly affected by the rate of the event at the first assessment time; in our examples, the bias ranged from 3 to 11% as the event rate increased. The proposed method relies on individual-level data from a study and attempts to adjust the timing of progression events to the comparator's schedule by shifting them forward or backward without altering the patients' actual follow-up time. The method removed the bias almost completely in all scenarios without affecting the precision of estimates of comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increasing use of unanchored comparative analyses for novel cancer treatments based on single-arm studies, the proposed method offers a relatively simple means of improving the accuracy of relative benefits of treatments on progression times.
BACKGROUND: The timing of efficacy-related clinical events recorded at scheduled study visits in clinical trials are interval censored, with the interval duration pre-determined by the study protocol. Events may happen any time during that interval but can only be detected during a planned or unplanned visit. Disease progression in oncology is a notable example where the time to an event is affected by the schedule of visits within a study. This can become a source of bias when studies with varying assessment schedules are used in unanchored comparisons using methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. OBJECTIVE: We illustrate assessment-time bias (ATB) in a simulation study based on data from a recent study in second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and present a method to adjust for differences in assessment schedule when comparing progression-free survival (PFS) against a competing treatment. METHODS: A multi-state model for death and progression was used to generate simulated death and progression times, from which PFS times were derived. PFS data were also generated for a hypothetical comparator treatment by applying a constant hazard ratio (HR) to the baseline treatment. Simulated PFS times for the two treatments were then aligned to different assessment schedules so that progression events were only observed at set visit times, and the data were analysed to assess the bias and standard error of estimates of HRs between two treatments with and without assessment-schedule matching (ASM). RESULTS:ATB is highly affected by the rate of the event at the first assessment time; in our examples, the bias ranged from 3 to 11% as the event rate increased. The proposed method relies on individual-level data from a study and attempts to adjust the timing of progression events to the comparator's schedule by shifting them forward or backward without altering the patients' actual follow-up time. The method removed the bias almost completely in all scenarios without affecting the precision of estimates of comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increasing use of unanchored comparative analyses for novel cancer treatments based on single-arm studies, the proposed method offers a relatively simple means of improving the accuracy of relative benefits of treatments on progression times.
Authors: Katherine S Panageas; Leah Ben-Porat; Maura N Dickler; Paul B Chapman; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yingwei Qi; Katie L Allen Ziegler; Shauna L Hillman; Mary W Redman; Steven E Schild; David R Gandara; Alex A Adjei; Sumithra J Mandrekar Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; Toshihiko Doi; Raymond W Jang; Kei Muro; Taroh Satoh; Manuela Machado; Weijing Sun; Shadia I Jalal; Manish A Shah; Jean-Phillipe Metges; Marcelo Garrido; Talia Golan; Mario Mandala; Zev A Wainberg; Daniel V Catenacci; Atsushi Ohtsu; Kohei Shitara; Ravit Geva; Jonathan Bleeker; Andrew H Ko; Geoffrey Ku; Philip Philip; Peter C Enzinger; Yung-Jue Bang; Diane Levitan; Jiangdian Wang; Minori Rosales; Rita P Dalal; Harry H Yoon Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Dina Oksen; Patricia Prince; Emmanuelle Boutmy; Elizabeth M Garry; Barbara Ellers-Lenz; Adina Estrin; Andreas Johne; Patrice Verpillat; Nicolle M Gatto Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Blythe J S Adamson; Xinran Ma; Sandra D Griffith; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Somnath Sarkar; Ariel B Bourla Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.732