Author
Listed:
- Jaclyn M. Beca
(Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), Toronto, Canada
MORSE Consulting Inc, Toronto, Canada)
- Kelvin K. W. Chan
(Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), Toronto, Canada
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada)
- David M. J. Naimark
(Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada)
- Petros Pechlivanoglou
(Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Child Health and Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada)
Abstract
Background Economic models often require extrapolation of clinical time-to-event data for multiple events. Two modeling approaches in oncology that incorporate time dependency include partitioned survival models (PSM) and semi-Markov decision models estimated using multistate modeling (MSM). The objective of this simulation study was to assess the performance of PSM and MSM across datasets with varying sample size and degrees of censoring. Methods We generated disease trajectories of progression and death for multiple hypothetical populations with advanced cancers. These populations served as the sampling pool for simulated trial cohorts with multiple sample sizes and various levels of follow-up. We estimated MSM and PSM by fitting survival models to these simulated datasets with different approaches to incorporating general population mortality (GPM) and selected best-fitting models using statistical criteria. Mean survival was compared with “true†population values to assess error. Results With near complete follow-up, both PSMs and MSMs accurately estimated mean population survival, while smaller samples and shorter follow-up times were associated with a larger error across approaches and clinical scenarios, especially for more distant clinical endpoints. MSMs were slightly more often not estimable when informed by studies with small sample sizes or short follow-up, due to low numbers at risk for the downstream transition. However, when estimable, the MSM models more commonly produced a smaller error in mean survival than the PSMs did. Conclusions Caution should be taken with all modeling approaches when the underlying data are very limited, particularly PSMs, due to the large errors produced. When estimable and for selections based on statistical criteria, MSMs performed similar to or better than PSMs in estimating mean survival with limited data. Highlights Caution should be taken with all modeling approaches when underlying data are very limited. Partitioned survival models (PSMs) can lead to significant errors, particularly with limited follow-up. Incorporating general population mortality (GPM) via internal additive hazards improved estimates of mean survival, but the effects were modest. When estimable, decision models based on multistate modeling (MSM) produced similar or smaller error in mean survival compared with PSM, but small samples or limited deaths after progression produce additional challenges for fitting MSMs; more research is needed to improve estimation of MSMs and similar state transition–based modeling methods with limited data. Future studies are needed to assess the applicability of these findings to comparative analyses estimating incremental survival benefits.
Suggested Citation
Jaclyn M. Beca & Kelvin K. W. Chan & David M. J. Naimark & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2025.
"Impact of Limited Sample Size and Follow-up on Partitioned Survival and Multistate Modeling-Based Health Economic Models: A Simulation Study,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(6), pages 714-725, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:714-725
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251342596
Download full text from publisher
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:45:y:2025:i:6:p:714-725. 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: 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.