Dataset Information

Comparison of model-building strategies for excess hazard regression models in the context of cancer epidemiology.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Large and complex population-based cancer data are becoming broadly available, thanks to purposeful linkage between cancer registry data and health electronic records. Aiming at understanding the explanatory power of factors on cancer survival, the modelling and selection of variables need to be understood and exploited properly for improving model-based estimates of cancer survival.

Method

We assess the performances of well-known model selection strategies developed by Royston and Sauerbrei and Wynant and Abrahamowicz that we adapt to the relative survival data setting and to test for interaction terms.

Results

We apply these to all male patients diagnosed with lung cancer in England in 2012 (N =?15,688), and followed-up until 31/12/2015. We model the effects of age at diagnosis, tumour stage, deprivation, comorbidity and emergency presentation, as well as interactions between age and all of the above. Given the size of the dataset, all model selection strategies favoured virtually the same model, except for a non-linear effect of age at diagnosis selected by the backward-based selection strategies (versus a linear effect selected otherwise).

Conclusion

The results from extensive simulations evaluating varying model complexity and sample sizes provide guidelines on a model selection strategy in the context of excess hazard modelling.

SUBMITTER: Maringe C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6869178 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of model-building strategies for excess hazard regression models in the context of cancer epidemiology.

Maringe Camille C Belot Aurélien A Rubio Francisco Javier FJ Rachet Bernard B

BMC medical research methodology 20191120 1

<h4>Background</h4>Large and complex population-based cancer data are becoming broadly available, thanks to purposeful linkage between cancer registry data and health electronic records. Aiming at understanding the explanatory power of factors on cancer survival, the modelling and selection of variables need to be understood and exploited properly for improving model-based estimates of cancer survival.<h4>Method</h4>We assess the performances of well-known model selection strategies developed by ...[more]

PMID: 31747928

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDifferent parametric survival models can lead to widely discordant extrapolations and decision uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. The use of excess hazard (EH) methods, which incorporate general population mortality data, has the potential to reduce model uncertainty. This review highlights key practical considerations of EH methods for estimating long-term survival.MethodsDemonstration of methods used a case study of 686 patients from the German Breast Cancer Study Group, followed for a maximum of 7.3 y and divided into low (1/2) and high (3) grade cancers. Seven standard parametric survival models were fit to each group separately. The same 7 distributions were then used in an EH framework, which incorporated general population mortality rates, and fitted both with and without a cure parameter. Survival extrapolations, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and difference in RMST between high and low grades were compared up to 30 years along with Akaike information criterion goodness-of-fit and cure fraction estimates. The sensitivity of the EH models to lifetable misspecification was investigated.ResultsIn our case study, variability in survival extrapolations was extensive across the standard models, with 30-y RMST ranging from 7.5 to 14.3 y. Incorporation of general population mortality rates using EH cure methods substantially reduced model uncertainty, whereas EH models without cure had less of an effect. Long-term treatment effects approached the null for most models but at varying rates. Lifetable misspecification had minimal effect on RMST differences.ConclusionsEH methods may be useful for survival extrapolation, and in cancer, EHs may decrease over time and be easier to extrapolate than all-cause hazards. EH cure models may be helpful when cure is plausible and likely to result in less extrapolation variability.HighlightsIn health economic modeling, to help anchor long-term survival extrapolation, it has been recommended that survival models incorporate background mortality rates using excess hazard (EH) methods.We present a thorough description of EH methods with and without the assumption of cure and demonstrate user-friendly software to aid researchers wishing to use these methods.EH models are applied to a case study, and we demonstrate that EHs are easier to extrapolate and that the use of the EH cure model, when cure is plausible, can reduce extrapolation variability.EH methods are relatively robust to lifetable misspecification.

Project description:BackgroundWhen study data are clustered, standard regression analysis is considered inappropriate and analytical techniques for clustered data need to be used. For prediction research in which the interest of predictor effects is on the patient level, random effect regression models are probably preferred over standard regression analysis. It is well known that the random effect parameter estimates and the standard logistic regression parameter estimates are different. Here, we compared random effect and standard logistic regression models for their ability to provide accurate predictions.MethodsUsing an empirical study on 1642 surgical patients at risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, who were treated by one of 19 anesthesiologists (clusters), we developed prognostic models either with standard or random intercept logistic regression. External validity of these models was assessed in new patients from other anesthesiologists. We supported our results with simulation studies using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 5%, 15%, or 30%. Standard performance measures and measures adapted for the clustered data structure were estimated.ResultsThe model developed with random effect analysis showed better discrimination than the standard approach, if the cluster effects were used for risk prediction (standard c-index of 0.69 versus 0.66). In the external validation set, both models showed similar discrimination (standard c-index 0.68 versus 0.67). The simulation study confirmed these results. For datasets with a high ICC (≥15%), model calibration was only adequate in external subjects, if the used performance measure assumed the same data structure as the model development method: standard calibration measures showed good calibration for the standard developed model, calibration measures adapting the clustered data structure showed good calibration for the prediction model with random intercept.ConclusionThe models with random intercept discriminate better than the standard model only if the cluster effect is used for predictions. The prediction model with random intercept had good calibration within clusters.

Dataset Information

Comparison of model-building strategies for excess hazard regression models in the context of cancer epidemiology.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of model-building strategies for excess hazard regression models in the context of cancer epidemiology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets