IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i3p299-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blended Survival Curves: A New Approach to Extrapolation for Time-to-Event Outcomes from Clinical Trials in Health Technology Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Zhaojing Che

    (Department of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower Street, London UK)

  • Nathan Green

    (Department of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower Street, London UK)

  • Gianluca Baio

    (Department of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower Street, London UK)

Abstract

Background Survival extrapolation is essential in cost-effectiveness analysis to quantify the lifetime survival benefit associated with a new intervention, due to the restricted duration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Current approaches of extrapolation often assume that the treatment effect observed in the trial can continue indefinitely, which is unrealistic and may have a huge impact on decisions for resource allocation. Objective We introduce a novel methodology as a possible solution to alleviate the problem of survival extrapolation with heavily censored data from clinical trials. Method The main idea is to mix a flexible model (e.g., Cox semiparametric) to fit as well as possible the observed data and a parametric model encoding assumptions on the expected behavior of underlying long-term survival. The two are “blended†into a single survival curve that is identical with the Cox model over the range of observed times and gradually approaching the parametric model over the extrapolation period based on a weight function. The weight function regulates the way two survival curves are blended, determining how the internal and external sources contribute to the estimated survival over time. Results A 4-y follow-up RCT of rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide versus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide alone for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia is used to illustrate the method. Conclusion Long-term extrapolation from immature trial data may lead to significantly different estimates with various modelling assumptions. The blending approach provides sufficient flexibility, allowing a wide range of plausible scenarios to be considered as well as the inclusion of external information, based, for example, on hard data or expert opinion. Both internal and external validity can be carefully examined. Highlights Interim analyses of trials with limited follow-up are often subject to high degrees of administrative censoring, which may result in implausible long-term extrapolations using standard approaches. In this article, we present an innovative methodology based on “blending†survival curves to relax the traditional proportional hazard assumption and simultaneously incorporate external information to guide the extrapolation. The blended method provides a simple and powerful framework to allow a careful consideration of a wide range of plausible scenarios, accounting for model fit to the short-term data as well as the plausibility of long-term extrapolations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhaojing Che & Nathan Green & Gianluca Baio, 2023. "Blended Survival Curves: A New Approach to Extrapolation for Time-to-Event Outcomes from Clinical Trials in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 299-310, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:3:p:299-310
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221134545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221134545
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221134545?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Bell Gorrod & Ben Kearns & John Stevens & Praveen Thokala & Alexander Labeit & Nicholas Latimer & David Tyas & Ahmed Sowdani, 2019. "A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 899-909, November.
    2. Christopher Jackson & John Stevens & Shijie Ren & Nick Latimer & Laura Bojke & Andrea Manca & Linda Sharples, 2017. "Extrapolating Survival from Randomized Trials Using External Data: A Review of Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(4), pages 377-390, May.
    3. James Larkin & Anthony J Hatswell & Paul Nathan & Maximilian Lebmeier & Dawn Lee, 2015. "The Predicted Impact of Ipilimumab Usage on Survival in Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma in the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Patricia Guyot & Anthony E. Ades & Matthew Beasley & Béranger Lueza & Jean-Pierre Pignon & Nicky J. Welton, 2017. "Extrapolation of Survival Curves from Cancer Trials Using External Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(4), pages 353-366, May.
    5. Adrian Vickers, 2019. "An Evaluation of Survival Curve Extrapolation Techniques Using Long-Term Observational Cancer Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 926-938, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ash Bullement & Matthew D. Stevenson & Gianluca Baio & Gemma E. Shields & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Incorporate External Evidence into Trial-Based Survival Extrapolations for Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 610-620, July.
    2. M. Campioni & I. Agirrezabal & R. Hajek & J. Minarik & L. Pour & I. Spicka & S. Gonzalez-McQuire & P. Jandova & V. Maisnar, 2020. "Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 219-233, March.
    3. Daniel Gallacher & Peter Kimani & Nigel Stallard, 2022. "Biased Survival Predictions When Appraising Health Technologies in Heterogeneous Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 109-120, January.
    4. Daniel Gallacher & Peter Kimani & Nigel Stallard, 2021. "Extrapolating Parametric Survival Models in Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 37-50, January.
    5. Taihang Shao & Mingye Zhao & Leyi Liang & Lizheng Shi & Wenxi Tang, 2023. "Impact of Extrapolation Model Choices on the Structural Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Checkmate 067," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 383-392, May.
    6. Fuhmei Wang & Jung-Der Wang & Yu-Wen Hung, 2018. "Universal health insurance, health inequality and oral cancer in Taiwan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Jing-Shiang Hwang & Tsuey-Hwa Hu, 2020. "Later-Life Exposure to Moderate PM 2.5 Air Pollution and Life Loss of Older Adults in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Mathyn Vervaart & Eline Aas & Karl P. Claxton & Mark Strong & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Anna Heath, 2023. "General-Purpose Methods for Simulating Survival Data for Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 595-609, July.
    9. Adrian Vickers, 2019. "An Evaluation of Survival Curve Extrapolation Techniques Using Long-Term Observational Cancer Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 926-938, November.
    10. Alexina J. Mason & Manuel Gomes & James Carpenter & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Flexible Bayesian longitudinal models for cost‐effectiveness analyses with informative missing data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3138-3158, December.
    11. Jonathan Dando & Maximilian Lebmeier, 2020. "A novel valuation model for medical intervention development based on progressive dynamic changes that integrates Health Technology Assessment outcomes with early-stage innovation and indication-speci," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    12. Yang Meng & Nadine Hertel & John Ellis & Edith Morais & Helen Johnson & Zoe Philips & Neil Roskell & Andrew Walker & Dawn Lee, 2018. "The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1163-1172, November.
    13. Philip Cooney & Arthur White, 2023. "Direct Incorporation of Expert Opinion into Parametric Survival Models to Inform Survival Extrapolation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 325-336, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:3:p:299-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.