IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0074368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation and Non-Transplant Approaches in Elderly Patients with Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Optimal Statistical Approaches and a Critical Appraisal of Clinical Results Using Non-Randomized Data

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Brand
  • Hein Putter
  • Anja van Biezen
  • Dietger Niederwieser
  • Rodrigo Martino
  • Ghulam Mufti
  • Francesco Onida
  • Argiris Symeonidis
  • Christoph Schmid
  • Laurent Garderet
  • Marie Robin
  • Michel van Gelder
  • Jürgen Finke
  • Martin Bornhäuser
  • Guido Kobbe
  • Ulrich Germing
  • Theo de Witte
  • Nicolaus Kröger

Abstract

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) from related or unrelated donors may cure patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a heterogeneous group of clonal stem cell disorders. We analysed 384 elderly patients (55-69 years) with advanced MDS who received either ASCT (n=247) and were reported to The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) or a non –transplant approach (n=137) reported to the Düsseldorf registry. Besides an attempt to answer the question of „comparison“, the purpose of this work is to explain the difficulties in comparing a non-transplant with a transplant cohort, when death before transplant is likely but unknown and the selection of patients for transplant is based on assumptions. It shows which methods are almost always biased and that even the most sophisticated approaches crucially rely on clinical assumptions. Using the most appropriate model for our data, we derive an overall univariate non-significant survival disadvantage for the transplant cohort (HR: 1.29, p = 0.11). We show that such an “average” hazard ratio is however misleading due to non-proportionality of the hazards reflecting early treatment related mortality, the occurring of which is logically correlated with the interval between diagnosis and transplant creating a disproportional drop in the (reconstructed) survival curve of the transplanted patients. Also in multivariate analysis (correcting for age > 60 (HR: 1.4, p = 0.02) and abnormal cytogenetics (HR: 1.46, p = 0.01)), transplantation seems to be worse (HR: 1.39, p = 0.05) but only in the (incorrect but commonly applied) model without time varying covariates. The long term (time depending) hazard ratio is shown to be virtually 1 and overall survival is virtually identical in both groups. Nonetheless no conclusion can be reached from a clinical point of view without assumptions which are by their very nature untestable unless all patients would be followed from diagnosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Brand & Hein Putter & Anja van Biezen & Dietger Niederwieser & Rodrigo Martino & Ghulam Mufti & Francesco Onida & Argiris Symeonidis & Christoph Schmid & Laurent Garderet & Marie Robin & Michel, 2013. "Comparison of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation and Non-Transplant Approaches in Elderly Patients with Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Optimal Statistical Approaches and a Critical Appraisal of ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074368
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074368
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074368&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0074368?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0074368. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.