Dataset Information

Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent studies have suggested that patients treated in research-active institutions have better outcomes than patients treated in research-inactive institutions. However, little attention has been paid to explaining such effects, probably because techniques for mediation analysis existing so far have not been applicable to survival data.

Methods

We investigated the underlying mechanisms using a recently developed method for mediation analysis of survival data. Our analysis of the effect of research activity on patient survival was based on 352 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer at 149 hospitals in 2001. All hospitals took part in a quality assurance program of the German Cancer Society. Patient outcomes were compared between hospitals participating in clinical trials and non-trial hospitals. Surgical outcome and chemotherapy selection were explored as potential mediators of the effect of hospital research activity on patient survival.

Results

The 219 patients treated in hospitals participating in clinical trials had more complete surgical debulking, were more likely to receive the recommended platinum-taxane combination, and had better survival than the 133 patients treated in non-trial hospitals. Taking into account baseline confounders, the overall adjusted hazard ratio of death was 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 0.79). This effect was decomposed into a direct effect of research activity of 0.67 and two indirect effects of 0.93 each mediated through either optimal surgery or chemotherapy. Taken together, about 26% of the beneficial effect of research activity was mediated through the proposed pathways.

Conclusions

Mediation analysis allows proceeding from the question "Does it work?" to the question "How does it work?" In particular, we have shown that the research activity of a hospital contributes to superior patient survival through better use of surgery and chemotherapy. This methodology may be applied to analyze direct and indirect natural effects for almost any combination of variable types.

SUBMITTER: Rochon J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3917547 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival.

Rochon Justine J du Bois Andreas A Lange Theis T

BMC medical research methodology 20140122

<h4>Background</h4>Recent studies have suggested that patients treated in research-active institutions have better outcomes than patients treated in research-inactive institutions. However, little attention has been paid to explaining such effects, probably because techniques for mediation analysis existing so far have not been applicable to survival data.<h4>Methods</h4>We investigated the underlying mechanisms using a recently developed method for mediation analysis of survival data. Our analy ...[more]

PMID: 24447677

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have found that use of aspirin can lengthen survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of aspirin use compared with non-aspirin use for patients with esophageal, gastric or colorectal cancer.MethodsWe searched online databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and www.clinicaltrials.gov for studies that were conducted, before April 30th, 2020, to identify relevant studies. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival of esophageal, gastric and colorectal cancers among aspirin users were compared with those among non-aspirin users. Data extraction and quality evaluation were independently conducted by 2 investigators. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled risk ratios (RRs) for overall survival and cancer-specific survival by using either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with more than 74,936 patients. There were no significant differences between postdiagnosis aspirin use and overall survival for esophageal and gastric cancers. For colorectal cancer, a benefit that was associated with postdiagnosis aspirin use was observed for overall survival and cancer-specific survival [HR = 0.83, 95%CI(0.75, 0.9.);HR = 0.78, 95%CI(0.66, 0.92), respectively. However, a prediagnosis of aspirin use did not provide a benefit for overall or cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer. HR values for overall and cancer-specific survival benefits for colorectal cancer associated with both prediagnosis and postdiagnosis aspirin were as follows: HR = 0.75, 95%CI(0.61, 0.92) and HR = 0.78, 95%CI(0.73, 0.85), respectively. In addition, the survival benefit of postdiagnosis aspirin use appeared to be confined to patients with mutated PIK3CA tumors [HR = 0.78, 95%CI(0.50, 0.99)] and was positive for PTGS2 (COX-2) expression [HR = 0.75, 95%CI(0.43, 1.30)].ConclusionsThese findings provide further indications that postdiagnosis aspirin use improves overall survival and cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer, especially for patients who are positive for PTGS2 (COX-2) expression and PIK3CA-mutated tumors. However, aspirin therapy does not improve overall survival in esophageal and gastric cancers, although the meta-analysis was mainly limited to retrospective studies.

Project description:BackgroundEpidemiological evidence suggests that use of aspirin after the diagnosis of colorectal cancer can lengthen survival. However, the supporting data vary between studies, and this hypothesis remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the association between use of aspirin after diagnosis of colorectal cancer and patient survival.MethodsWe searched the Medline and Embase databases up to April 2014 to identify studies related to aspirin use after diagnosis and all-cause mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality. Summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a fixed or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity between the included studies.ResultsSeven epidemiologic studies that consisted of six cohort studies and one nested case-control study were included in this meta-analysis. The hazard ratio (HR) of the association between aspirin use after colorectal cancer diagnosis and overall mortality, which was reported in five studies, was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.89) using a random model (heterogeneity test P=0.003, I(2)=75.3%), and for colorectal cancer-specific mortality (four studies), it was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10) using a random model (heterogeneity test P=0.001, I(2)=84.1%). In addition, we analysed postdiagnosis aspirin use according to whether aspirin was also used before diagnosis. The HR for the overall mortality of patients who did not use aspirin before diagnosis, which was reported in four studies, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70-1.00), and for colorectal cancer-specific mortality (three studies), it was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61-1.02). For those who did use aspirin before diagnosis, the HR for overall mortality (four studies) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93), and for colorectal cancer-specific mortality (three studies), it was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.59-1.09). Subgroup analysis showed that use of aspirin after diagnosis was associated with longer overall survival among patients with the variant PIK3CA gene but not for those with wild-type PIK3CA.ConclusionsBased on current evidence, the use of aspirin after diagnosis does not reduce colorectal cancer-specific mortality, but it does reduce all-cause mortality for colorectal cancer patients.

Project description:BackgroundIt is important to monitor the scope of clinical research of all types, to involve participants of all ages and subgroups in studies that are appropriate to their condition, and to ensure equal access and broad validity of the findings.ObjectiveWe conducted a review of clinical research performed at New York University with the following objectives: (1) to determine the utility of institutional administrative data to characterize clinical research activity; (2) to assess the inclusion of special populations; and (3) to determine if the type, initiation, and completion of the study differed by age.MethodsData for all studies that were institutional review board-approved between January 1, 2014, and November 2, 2016, were obtained from the research navigator system, which was launched in November 2013. One module provided details about the study protocol, and another module provided the characteristics of individual participants. Research studies were classified as observational or interventional. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the characteristics of clinical studies across the lifespan, by type, and over time.ResultsA total of 22%-24% of studies included children (minimum age <18 years) and 4%-5% focused exclusively on pediatrics. Similarly, 64%-72% of studies included older patients (maximum age >65 years) but only 5%-12% focused exclusively on geriatrics. Approximately 85% of the studies included both male and female participants. Of the remaining studies, those open only to girls or women were approximately 3 times as common as those confined to boys or men. A total of 56%-58% of projects focused on nonvulnerable patients. Among the special populations studied, children (12%-15%) were the most common. Noninterventional trial types included research on human data sets (24%), observational research (22%), survey research (16%), and biospecimen research (8%). The percentage of projects designed to test an intervention in a vulnerable population increased from 17% in 2014 to 21% in 2015.ConclusionsPediatric participants were the special population that was most often studied based on the number of registered projects that included children and adolescents. However, they were much less likely to be successfully enrolled in research studies compared with adults older than 65 years. Only 20% of the studies were interventional, and 20%-35% of participants in this category were from vulnerable populations. More studies are exclusively devoted to women's health issues compared with men's health issues.

Dataset Information

Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets