IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v74y2018i3p900-909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling survival distribution as a function of time to treatment discontinuation: A dynamic treatment regime approach

Author

Listed:
  • Shu Yang
  • Anastasios A. Tsiatis
  • Michael Blazing

Abstract

We consider estimating the effect that discontinuing a beneficial treatment will have on the distribution of a time to event clinical outcome, and in particular assessing whether there is a period of time over which the beneficial effect may continue after discontinuation. There are two major challenges. The first is to make a distinction between mandatory discontinuation, where by necessity treatment has to be terminated and optional discontinuation which is decided by the preference of the patient or physician. The innovation in this article is to cast the intervention in the form of a dynamic regime “terminate treatment optionally at time v unless a mandatory treatment‐terminating event occurs prior to v” and consider estimating the distribution of time to event as a function of treatment regime v. The second challenge arises from biases associated with the nonrandom assignment of treatment regimes, because, naturally, optional treatment discontinuation is left to the patient and physician, and so time to discontinuation may depend on the patient's disease status. To address this issue, we develop dynamic‐regime Marginal Structural Models and use inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the impact of time to treatment discontinuation on a time to event outcome, compared to the effect of not discontinuing treatment. We illustrate our methods using the IMPROVE‐IT data on cardiovascular disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Shu Yang & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Michael Blazing, 2018. "Modeling survival distribution as a function of time to treatment discontinuation: A dynamic treatment regime approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 900-909, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:74:y:2018:i:3:p:900-909
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.12845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12845
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.12845?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brent A. Johnson & Anastasios A. Tsiatis, 2005. "Semiparametric inference in observational duration-response studies, with duration possibly right-censored," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 92(3), pages 605-618, September.
    2. Brent A. Johnson & Anastasios A. Tsiatis, 2004. "Estimating Mean Response as a Function of Treatment Duration in an Observational Study, Where Duration May Be Informatively Censored," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 315-323, June.
    3. Orellana Liliana & Rotnitzky Andrea & Robins James M., 2010. "Dynamic Regime Marginal Structural Mean Models for Estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Part II: Proofs of Results," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Orellana Liliana & Rotnitzky Andrea & Robins James M., 2010. "Dynamic Regime Marginal Structural Mean Models for Estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Part I: Main Content," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-49, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hao Sun & Ashkan Ertefaie & Brent A. Johnson, 2022. "Estimating mean potential outcome under adaptive treatment length strategies in continuous time," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1503-1514, December.
    2. Shu Yang, 2022. "Semiparametric estimation of structural nested mean models with irregularly spaced longitudinal observations," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 937-949, September.
    3. Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Marie Davidian, 2022. "Estimating vaccine efficacy over time after a randomized study is unblinded," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 825-838, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Q. Clairon & R. Henderson & N. J. Young & E. D. Wilson & C. J. Taylor, 2021. "Adaptive treatment and robust control," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 223-236, March.
    2. Jelena Bradic & Weijie Ji & Yuqian Zhang, 2021. "High-dimensional Inference for Dynamic Treatment Effects," Papers 2110.04924, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    3. Ying Huang & Youyi Fong, 2014. "Identifying optimal biomarker combinations for treatment selection via a robust kernel method," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 891-901, December.
    4. Ruoqing Zhu & Ying-Qi Zhao & Guanhua Chen & Shuangge Ma & Hongyu Zhao, 2017. "Greedy outcome weighted tree learning of optimal personalized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 391-400, June.
    5. Mélanie Prague & Daniel Commenges & Jon Michael Gran & Bruno Ledergerber & Jim Young & Hansjakob Furrer & Rodolphe Thiébaut, 2017. "Dynamic models for estimating the effect of HAART on CD4 in observational studies: Application to the Aquitaine Cohort and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 294-304, March.
    6. Eric B. Laber & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Marie Davidian & Shannon T. Holloway, 2014. "Discussion of “Combining biomarkers to optimize patient treatment recommendation”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 707-710, September.
    7. Xin Lu & Brent A. Johnson, 2017. "Direct estimation for adaptive treatment length policies: Methods and application to evaluating the effect of delayed PEG insertion," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 981-989, September.
    8. Victor Chernozhukov & Whitney Newey & Rahul Singh & Vasilis Syrgkanis, 2022. "Automatic Debiased Machine Learning for Dynamic Treatment Effects and General Nested Functionals," Papers 2203.13887, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    9. Xiaofei Bai & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Wenbin Lu & Rui Song, 2017. "Optimal treatment regimes for survival endpoints using a locally-efficient doubly-robust estimator from a classification perspective," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 585-604, October.
    10. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Tomohiro Shinozaki & Hirofumi Mukai & Yutaka Matsuyama, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis for subsequent treatments in confirmatory oncology clinical trials: A two‐stage stochastic dynamic treatment regime approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 702-714, June.
    11. Yuqian Zhang & Weijie Ji & Jelena Bradic, 2021. "Dynamic treatment effects: high-dimensional inference under model misspecification," Papers 2111.06818, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    12. Brent A. Johnson & Heather Ribaudo & Roy M. Gulick & Joseph J. Eron Jr., 2013. "Modeling Clinical Endpoints as a Function of Time of Switch to Second-Line ART with Incomplete Data on Switching Times," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 732-740, September.
    13. Yunan Wu & Lan Wang, 2021. "Resampling‐based confidence intervals for model‐free robust inference on optimal treatment regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 465-476, June.
    14. Eric B. Laber & Daniel J. Lizotte & Bradley Ferguson, 2014. "Set-valued dynamic treatment regimes for competing outcomes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 53-61, March.
    15. Andrew J. Spieker & Emily M. Ko & Jason A. Roy & Nandita Mitra, 2020. "Nested g‐computation: a causal approach to analysis of censored medical costs in the presence of time‐varying treatment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1189-1208, November.
    16. Emily L. Butler & Eric B. Laber & Sonia M. Davis & Michael R. Kosorok, 2018. "Incorporating Patient Preferences into Estimation of Optimal Individualized Treatment Rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 18-26, March.
    17. Isaac Meza & Rahul Singh, 2021. "Nested Nonparametric Instrumental Variable Regression: Long Term, Mediated, and Time Varying Treatment Effects," Papers 2112.14249, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    18. Zhen Li & Jie Chen & Eric Laber & Fang Liu & Richard Baumgartner, 2023. "Optimal Treatment Regimes: A Review and Empirical Comparison," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(3), pages 427-463, December.
    19. Cain Lauren E. & Robins James M. & Lanoy Emilie & Logan Roger & Costagliola Dominique & Hernán Miguel A., 2010. "When to Start Treatment? A Systematic Approach to the Comparison of Dynamic Regimes Using Observational Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-26, April.
    20. Liangyuan Hu & Joseph W. Hogan & Ann W. Mwangi & Abraham Siika, 2018. "Modeling the causal effect of treatment initiation time on survival: Application to HIV/TB co†infection," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 703-713, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:biomet:v:74:y:2018:i:3:p:900-909. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.