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

Article, Book English OPEN
Latimer, N.R. ; White, I.R. ; Abrams, K.R. ; Sieburt, U. (2017)
  • Publisher: ScHARR, University of Sheffield
  • Subject: Treatment switching, treatment crossover, survival analysis, overall survival, oncology, health technology assessment, time-to-event outcomes, prediction, re-censoring

Treatment switching often has a crucial impact on estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new oncology treatments. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and two-stage estimation (TSE) methods estimate ‘counterfactual’ (i.e. had there been no switching) survival times and incorporate re-censoring to guard against informative censoring in the counterfactual dataset. However, re-censoring causes a loss of longer term survival information which is problematic when estimates of long-term survival effects are required, as is often the case for health technology assessment decision making. We present a simulation study designed to investigate applications of the RPSFTM and TSE with and without re-censoring, to determine whether re-censoring should always be recommended within adjustment analyses. We investigate a context where switching is from the control group onto the experimental treatment in scenarios with varying switch proportions, treatment effect sizes, treatment effect changes over time, survival function shapes, disease severity and switcher prognosis. Methods were assessed according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival that would be observed in the absence of switching, up to the end of trial follow-up. We found that analyses which re-censored usually produced negative bias (i.e. underestimating control group restricted mean survival and overestimating the treatment effect), whereas analyses that did not re-censor consistently produced positive bias which was often smaller in magnitude than the bias associated with re-censored analyses, particularly when the treatment effect was high and the switching proportion was low. The RPSFTM with re-censoring generally resulted in increased bias compared to the other methods. We believe that analyses should be conducted with and without re-censoring, as this may provide decision-makers with useful information on where the true treatment effect is likely to lie. Incorporating re-censoring should not always represent the default approach when the objective is to estimate long-term survival times and treatment effects.
  • References (11)
    11 references, page 1 of 2

    [1]. Latimer NR, Abrams KR, Lambert PC et al. Adjusting survival time estimates to account for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials - an economic evaluation context: Methods, limitations and recommendations. Med Decis Making. DOI:10.1177/0272989X13520192 (2014).

    [2]. Jonsson L, Sandin R, Ekman M et al. Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation. Value Health. 17(6),707-713 (2014).

    [3]. Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Korytowsky B, Sandin R, Faivre S, Valle J. Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 32(6),533-46 (2014).

    [4]. Watkins C, Huang X, Latimer N, Tang Y, Wright EJ. Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical application. Pharm Stat. 12(6),348-57 (2013).

    [5]. Latimer NR, Henshall C, Siebert U, Bell H. Treatment Switching: statistical and decision making challenges and approaches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 32(3):160- 166 14 Sep 2016

    [6]. Henshall C, Latimer NR, Sansom L, Ward RL. Treatment switching in cancer trials: Issues and proposals. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 32(3):167-174 01 Jan 2016

    [7]. Latimer NR, Bell H, Abrams KR, Amonkar MM, Casey M. Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy. Cancer Medicine 2016; 5(5):806-815

    [8]. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Ward S, Eggington S, Hind D, Hummel S. Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments. European Journal of Cancer 2006;42;17:2867-2875

    [9]. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2013. nice.org.uk/process/pmg9 (Accessed 2 June 2017).

    [10]. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2006

  • Similar Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark