Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

The extrapolation of estimated hazard functions can be an important part of cost-effectiveness analyses. Given limited follow-up time in the sample data, it may be expected that the uncertainty in estimates of hazards increases the further into the future they are extrapolated. The objective of this study was to illustrate how the choice of parametric survival model impacts on estimates of uncertainty about extrapolated hazard functions and lifetime mean survival.

Methods

We examined seven commonly used parametric survival models and described analytical expressions and approximation methods (delta and multivariate normal) for estimating uncertainty. We illustrate the multivariate normal method using case studies based on four representative hypothetical datasets reflecting hazard functions commonly encountered in clinical practice (constant, increasing, decreasing, or unimodal), along with a hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis.

Results

Depending on the survival model chosen, the uncertainty in extrapolated hazard functions could be constant, increasing or decreasing over time for the case studies. Estimates of uncertainty in mean survival showed a large variation (up to sevenfold) for each case study. The magnitude of uncertainty in estimates of cost effectiveness, as measured using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, varied threefold across plausible models. Differences in estimates of uncertainty were observed even when models provided near-identical point estimates.

Conclusions

Survival model choice can have a significant impact on estimates of uncertainty of extrapolated hazard functions, mean survival and cost effectiveness, even when point estimates were similar. We provide good practice recommendations for analysts and decision makers, emphasizing the importance of considering the plausibility of estimates of uncertainty in the extrapolated period as a complementary part of the model selection process.

SUBMITTER: Kearns B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6976548 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Kearns Ben B Stevens John J Ren Shijie S Brennan Alan A

PharmacoEconomics 20200201 2

<h4>Background and objective</h4>The extrapolation of estimated hazard functions can be an important part of cost-effectiveness analyses. Given limited follow-up time in the sample data, it may be expected that the uncertainty in estimates of hazards increases the further into the future they are extrapolated. The objective of this study was to illustrate how the choice of parametric survival model impacts on estimates of uncertainty about extrapolated hazard functions and lifetime mean survival ...[more]

PMID: 31761997

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn decision modeling with time-to-event data, there are a variety of parametric models that can be used to extrapolate the survival function. Each model implies a different hazard function, and in situations in which there is moderate censoring, this can result in quite different survival projections. External information such as expert opinion on long-term survival can more accurately characterize the uncertainty in these extrapolations.ObjectiveWe present a general and easily implementable approach to incorporate various types of expert opinions into parametric survival models, focusing on opinions about survival at various landmark time points.MethodsExpert opinion is incorporated into parametric survival models using Bayesian and frequentist approaches. In the Bayesian method, expert opinion is included through a loss function and in the frequentist approach by penalizing the likelihood function, although in both cases the core approach is the same. The issue of aggregating multiple expert opinions is also considered.ResultsWe apply this method to data from a leukemia trial and use previously elicited expert opinion on survival probabilities for that particular trial population at years 4 and 5 to inform our analysis. We take a robust approach to modeling expert opinion by using pooled distributions and fit a broad class of parametric models to the data. We also assess statistical goodness of fit of the models to both the observed data and expert opinion.ConclusionsExpert opinions can be implemented in a straightforward manner using this novel approach; however, more work is required on the correct elicitation of these quantities.HighlightsPresentation of a novel and open-source method to incorporate expert opinion into decision modeling.Extends upon earlier work in that expert opinion can be incorporated into a wide range of parametric models.Provides methodological guidance for directly including expert opinion in decision modeling, which is a research focus area in NICE TSD 21.1.

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:BackgroundIn health technology assessment, restricted mean survival time and life expectancy are commonly evaluated. Parametric models are typically used for extrapolation. Spline models using a relative survival framework have been shown to estimate life expectancy of cancer patients more reliably; however, more research is needed to assess spline models using an all-cause survival framework and standard parametric models using a relative survival framework.AimTo assess survival extrapolation using standard parametric models and spline models within relative survival and all-cause survival frameworks.MethodsFrom the Swedish Cancer Registry, we identified patients diagnosed with 5 types of cancer (colon, breast, melanoma, prostate, and chronic myeloid leukemia) between 1981 and 1990 with follow-up until 2020. Patients were categorized into 15 cancer cohorts by cancer and age group (18-59, 60-69, and 70-99 y). We right-censored the follow-up at 2, 3, 5, and 10 y and fitted the parametric models within an all-cause and a relative survival framework to extrapolate to 10 y and lifetime in comparison with the observed Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. All cohorts were modeled with 6 standard parametric models (exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log-logistic, log-normal, and generalized gamma) and 3 spline models (on hazard, odds, and normal scales).ResultsFor predicting 10-y survival, spline models generally performed better than standard parametric models. However, using an all-cause or a relative survival framework did not show any distinct difference. For lifetime survival, extrapolating from a relative survival framework agreed better with the observed survival, particularly using spline models.ConclusionsFor extrapolation to 10 y, we recommend spline models. For extrapolation to lifetime, we suggest extrapolating in a relative survival framework, especially using spline models.HighlightsFor survival extrapolation to 10 y, spline models generally performed better than standard parametric models did. However, using an all-cause or a relative survival framework showed no distinct difference under the same parametric model.Survival extrapolation to lifetime within a relative survival framework agreed well with the observed data, especially using spline models.Extrapolating parametric models within an all-cause survival framework may overestimate survival proportions at lifetime; models for the relative survival approach may underestimate instead.

Project description:BackgroundIt is essential to have information on the disease burden of lung cancer at an individual level throughout the life; however, few such results have been reported. Thus, this study aimed to assess the lifetime disease burden in patients with lung cancer by assessing various factors, such as survival, years of life lost (YLL) and medical expenditure in South Korea based on real-world data and extrapolation.MethodsNewly diagnosed lung cancer patients (n = 2919) in 2004-2010 were selected and observed until the end of 2015 using nationwide reimbursement claim database. The patients were categorised into the Surgery group, Chemo and/or Radiotherapy group (CTx/RTx), and Surgery+CTx/RTx according to their treatment modality. Age- and sex-matched control subjects were selected from among general population using the life table. The survival and cost data after diagnosis were analysed by a semi-parametric method, the Kaplan-Meier analysis for the first 100 months and rolling extrapolation algorithm for 101-300 months. YLL were derived from the difference in survival between patients and controls.ResultsLifetime estimates (standard error) were 4.5 (0.2) years for patients and 14.5 (0.1) years for controls and the derived YLL duration was 10.0 (0.2) years. Lifetime survival years showed the following trend: Surgery (14.2 years) > Surgery+CTx/RTx (8.5 years) > CTx/RTx group (3.0 years), and YLL were increased as lifetime survival years decreased (2.3, 8.7, 12.2 years, respectively). The mean lifetime medical cost was estimated at 30,857 USD/patient. Patients in the Surgery group paid higher treatment cost in first year after diagnosis, but the overall mean cost per year was lower at 4359 USD compared with 7075USD of Surgery+CTx/RTx or 7626USD of CTx/RTx group.ConclusionsLung cancer has resulted in about 10 years of life lost in overall patients. The losses were associated with treatment modality, and the results indicated that diagnosing lung cancer in patients with low stage disease eligible for surgery is beneficial for reducing disease burden in terms of survival and treatment cost per year throughout the life.

Dataset Information

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.

Background and objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets