Dataset Information

Estimation of Overall Survival with Subsequent Treatment Effect by Applying Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting in the LATITUDE Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the LATITUDE study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01715285), compared with placebos, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) provided significant overall survival (OS) benefit in high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients. It is controversial whether survival benefits would remain if all patients in the placebo group subsequently received life-extending therapies.

Objective

To estimate treatment effect in the case of all patients in the placebo group receiving life-extending subsequent therapies.

Design setting and participants

A post hoc analysis of LATITUDE final-analysis data was carried out (setting and participants have been reported previously).

Intervention

AAP or placebos plus ADT.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We applied the inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) method to represent the situation in which all patients in the placebo group would have received life-extending subsequent therapies. The OS hazard ratio (HR) of AAP versus placebos and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results and limitations

Of the 581 eligible patients in the placebo group, 237 (40.8%) did not receive life-extending subsequent therapies. From the unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the HR for OS for AAP versus placebos was 0.661 (95% CI 0.564-0.775). Using IPCW to adjust for patients in the placebo group without life-extending subsequent therapies, the HR was 0.732 (95% CI 0.604-0.887). A limitation is a lack of proof that the Cox proportional hazards model for the absence of life-extending subsequent therapy is correctly specified for the IPCW method.

Conclusions

Treatment with AAP exerts OS benefit over placebos in high-risk mCSPC patients, regardless of whether life-extending subsequent therapy is given.

Patient summary

In a previous study, high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients who received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) with androgen deprivation therapy generally survived longer than those given placebos. The benefit of adding AAP continues regardless of whether life-extending subsequent therapy is given.

SUBMITTER: Koroki Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment switching is common in randomised trials of oncology treatments, with control group patients switching onto the experimental treatment during follow-up. This distorts an intention-to-treat comparison of the treatments under investigation. Two-stage estimation (TSE) can be used to estimate counterfactual survival times for patients who switch treatments - that is, survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. However, when switchers do not die during the study, counterfactual censoring times are estimated, inducing informative censoring. Re-censoring is usually applied alongside TSE to resolve this problem, but results in lost longer-term information - a major concern if the objective is to estimate long-term treatment effects, as is usually the case in health technology assessment. Inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) represents an alternative technique for addressing informative censoring but has not before been combined with TSE. We aim to determine whether combining TSE with IPCW (TSEipcw) represents a valid alternative to re-censoring.MethodsWe conducted a simulation study to compare TSEipcw to TSE with and without re-censoring. We simulated 48 scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment, with switching affected by prognosis. We investigated various switching proportions, treatment effects, survival function shapes, disease severities and switcher prognoses. We assessed the alternative TSE applications according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival (RMST) that would have been observed in the absence of switching up to the end of trial follow-up.ResultsTSEipcw performed well when its weights had a low coefficient of variation, but performed poorly when the coefficient of variation was high. Re-censored analyses usually under-estimated control group RMST, whereas non-re-censored analyses usually produced over-estimates, with bias more serious when the treatment effect was high. In scenarios where TSEipcw performed well, it produced low bias that was often between the two extremes associated with the re-censoring and non-recensoring options.ConclusionsTreatment switching adjustment analyses using TSE should be conducted with re-censoring, without re-censoring, and with IPCW to explore the sensitivity in results to these application options. This should allow analysts and decision-makers to better interpret the results of adjustment analyses.