IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i7p945-955.html

Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Kearns

    (The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Matt D. Stevenson

    (The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Kostas Triantafyllopoulos

    (The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Andrea Manca

    (The University of York, York, UK)

Abstract

Background Extrapolation of survival data is a key task in health technology assessments (HTAs), which may be improved by incorporating general population mortality data via relative survival models. Dynamic survival models are a promising method for extrapolation that may be expanded to dynamic relative survival models (DRSMs), a novel development presented here. There are currently neither examples of dynamic models in HTA nor comparisons of DRSMs with other relative survival models when used for survival extrapolation. Methods An existing appraisal, for which there had been disagreement over the approach to survival extrapolation, was chosen and the health economic model recreated. The sensitivity of estimates of cost-effectiveness to different model choices (standard survival models, DSMs, and DRSMs) and specifications was examined. The appraisal informed a simulation study to evaluate DRSMs with relative survival models based on both standard and spline-based (flexible) models. Results Dynamic models provided insight into the behavior of the trend in the hazard function and how it may vary during the extrapolated phase. DRSMs led to extrapolations with improved plausibility for which model choice may be based on clinical input. In the simulation study, the flexible and dynamic relative survival models performed similarly and provided highly variable extrapolations. Limitations Further experience with these models is required to identify settings when they are most useful, and they provide sufficiently accurate extrapolations. Conclusions Dynamic models provide a flexible and attractive method for extrapolating survival data and facilitate the use of clinical input for model choice. Flexible and dynamic relative survival models make few structural assumptions and can improve extrapolation plausibility, but further research is required into methods for reducing the variability in extrapolations.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Kearns & Matt D. Stevenson & Kostas Triantafyllopoulos & Andrea Manca, 2022. "Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 945-955, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:945-955
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221107649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221107649
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221107649?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. 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.
    2. Benjamin Kearns & Matt D. Stevenson & Kostas Triantafyllopoulos & Andrea Manca, 2019. "Generalized Linear Models for Flexible Parametric Modeling of the Hazard Function," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 867-878, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Young & Jack Said & Sam Large, 2025. "Relative Survival Modeling for Appraising the Cost-Effectiveness of Life-Extending Treatments: An Application to Tafamidis for the Treatment of Transthyretin Amyloidosis with Cardiomyopathy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(6), pages 726-739, August.

    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. 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.
    2. An, Zihao & Mullen, Caroline & Heinen, Eva, 2025. "Disruptions as catalysts to sustainability? Long-term responses in bike-sharing demand to disruptions during the pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Loïg Gaugain & Hélène Cawston & Coline Dubois de Gennes & Javier Sanchez Alvares & Pierre Nahon & Benjamin Mazaleyrat & Clément Le Dissez, 2023. "Cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab with bevacizumab in untreated unresectable or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Mingye Zhao & Yunlin Jiang & Taihang Shao & Wenxi Tang, 2025. "Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness evaluation of systemic treatments for refractory colorectal cancer: a systematic review and modeling study," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Nicholas R. Latimer & Kurt Taylor & Anthony J. Hatswell & Sophia Ho & Gabriel Okorogheye & Clara Chen & Inkyu Kim & John Borrill & David Bertwistle, 2024. "An Evaluation of an Algorithm for the Selection of Flexible Survival Models for Cancer Immunotherapies: Pass or Fail?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1395-1412, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Ash Bullement & Mark Edmondson-Jones & Patricia Guyot & Nicky J. Welton & Gianluca Baio & Matthew Stevenson & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2024. "MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation—A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1317-1327, December.
    10. Ben Kearns & John Stevens & Shijie Ren & Alan Brennan, 2020. "How Uncertain is the Survival Extrapolation? A Study of the Impact of Different Parametric Survival Models on Extrapolated Uncertainty About Hazard Functions, Lifetime Mean Survival and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 193-204, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Arantzazu Arrospide & Oliver Ibarrondo & Rubén Blasco-Aguado & Igor Larrañaga & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Javier Mar, 2024. "Using Age-Specific Rates for Parametric Survival Function Estimation in Simulation Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 359-364, May.
    13. Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe & Emma Norrman & Christina Bergh & Ulla-Britt Wennerholm & Max Petzold, 2021. "Comparison of the performances of survival analysis regression models for analysis of conception modes and risk of type-1 diabetes among 1985–2015 Swedish birth cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-23, June.
    14. 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.
    15. M. A. Chaudhary & M. Edmondson-Jones & G. Baio & E. Mackay & J. R. Penrod & D. J. Sharpe & G. Yates & S. Rafiq & K. Johannesen & M. K. Siddiqui & J. Vanderpuye-Orgle & A. Briggs, 2023. "Use of Advanced Flexible Modeling Approaches for Survival Extrapolation from Early Follow-up Data in two Nivolumab Trials in Advanced NSCLC with Extended Follow-up," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 91-109, January.
    16. Kun Kim & Michael Sweeting & Nils Wilking & Linus Jönsson, 2024. "General Population Mortality Adjustment in Survival Extrapolation of Cancer Trials: Exploring Plausibility and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer in Sweden," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 843-853, October.
    17. Daniel J. Sharpe & Georgia Yates & Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhary & Yong Yuan & Adam Lee, 2026. "A Bayesian Model Leveraging Multiple External Data Sources to Improve the Reliability of Lifetime Survival Extrapolations in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(2), pages 174-188, February.
    18. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:945-955. 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.