IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i2p194-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Treatment-Switching Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Combining Causal Inference with Decision-Analytic Modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Felicitas Kuehne

    (Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT–University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)

  • Ursula Rochau

    (Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT–University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)

  • Noman Paracha

    (Bayer Consumer Care AG, Pharmaceuticals, Oncology SBU, Basel, Basel-Stadt, Switzerland)

  • Jennifer M. Yeh

    (Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School & Boston Children’s Hospital)

  • Eduardo Sabate

    (Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Oncology, Basking Ridge, NJ, USA)

  • Uwe Siebert

    (Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT–University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
    Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL-Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
    Center for Health Decision Science, Departments of Epidemiology and Health Policy & Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Background Bevacizumab is efficacious in delaying ovarian cancer progression and controlling ascites. The ICON7 trial showed a significant benefit in overall survival for bevacizumab, whereas the GOG-218 trial did not. GOG-218 allowed control group patients to switch to bevacizumab upon progression, which may have biased the results. Lack of data on switching behavior prevented the application of g-methods to adjust for switching. The objective of this study was to apply decision-analytic modeling to estimate the impact of switching bias on causal treatment-effect estimates. Methods We developed a causal decision-analytic Markov model (CDAMM) to emulate the GOG-218 trial and estimate overall survival. CDAMM input parameters were based on data from randomized clinical trials and the published literature. Overall switching proportion was based on GOG-218 trial information, whereas the proportion switching with and without ascites was estimated using calibration. We estimated the counterfactual treatment effect that would have been observed had no switching occurred by denying switching in the CDAMM. Results The survival curves generated by the CDAMM matched well with the ones reported in the GOG-218 trial. The survival curve correcting for switching showed an estimated bias such that 79% of the true treatment effect could not be observed in the GOG-218 trial. Results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion progressing with severe ascites and mortality. Limitations We used a simplified model structure and based model parameters on published data and assumptions. Robustness of the CDAMM was tested and model assumptions transparently reported. Conclusions Medical-decision science methods may be merged with empirical methods of causal inference to integrate data from other sources where empirical data are not sufficient. We recommend collecting sufficient information on switching behavior when switching cannot be avoided.

Suggested Citation

  • Felicitas Kuehne & Ursula Rochau & Noman Paracha & Jennifer M. Yeh & Eduardo Sabate & Uwe Siebert, 2022. "Estimating Treatment-Switching Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Combining Causal Inference with Decision-Analytic Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 194-207, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:2:p:194-207
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211026288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211026288
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211026288?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. Uwe Siebert, 2003. "When should decision-analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 143-150, September.
    2. J.Robert Beck & Stephen G. Pauker, 1983. "The Markov Process in Medical Prognosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(4), pages 419-458, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Uwe Siebert & Gaby Sroczynski & Jürgen Wasem & Wolfgang Greiner & Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer & Pamela Aidelsburger & Bärbel Kurth & Monika Bullinger & J.-Matthias Schulenburg & John Wong & Siegbert Rossol, 2005. "Using competence network collaboration and decision-analytic modeling to assess the cost-effectiveness of interferon α-2b plus ribavirin as initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 112-123, June.
    2. Beate Jahn & Sarah Friedrich & Joachim Behnke & Joachim Engel & Ursula Garczarek & Ralf Münnich & Markus Pauly & Adalbert Wilhelm & Olaf Wolkenhauer & Markus Zwick & Uwe Siebert & Tim Friede, 2022. "On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(3), pages 349-382, September.
    3. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    4. Karina Hansen & Christophe Lançon & Mondher Toumi, 2006. "Pharmacoeconomic modelling in schizophrenia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(1), pages 19-29, March.
    5. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    6. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    7. Donna M. Edwards & Ross D. Shachter & Douglas K. Owens, 1998. "A Dynamic HIV-Transmission Model for Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Vaccine Programs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 144-166, June.
    8. David G. Simon, 1986. "A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Cyclosporine in Cadaveric Kidney Transplantation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(4), pages 199-207, December.
    9. de Wit, G.Ardine & Ramsteijn, Paul G & de Charro, Frank Th, 1998. "Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 215-232, June.
    10. Craig Fleming & John B. Wong & Alan J. Moskowitz & Stephen G. Pauker, 1988. "A Peripartum Neurologic Event: Shooting from the Hip," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(1), pages 55-71, February.
    11. Schulenburg J.-Matthias Graf von der & Vauth Christoph, 2007. "Nach welchen ökonomischen Methoden sollten Gesundheitsleistungen in Deutschland evaluiert werden? / According to Which Economic Methods Should Health Care Services Become Evaluated in Germany?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 227(5-6), pages 787-806, October.
    12. Cuc Thi Thu Nguyen & Fabio Petrelli & Stefania Scuri & Binh Thanh Nguyen & Iolanda Grappasonni, 2019. "A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 763-777, July.
    13. J. Jaime Caro & Andrew H. Briggs & Uwe Siebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2012. "Modeling Good Research Practices—Overview," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 667-677, September.
    14. Lukas J.A. Stalpers & Hans J.M. Van Gasteren & Willem A.J. Van Daal, 1989. "DEALE-ing with Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 150-152, June.
    15. Bruce A. Craig & Peter P. Sendi, 2002. "Estimation of the transition matrix of a discrete‐time Markov chain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 33-42, January.
    16. Xudong Du & Mier Li & Ping Zhu & Ju Wang & Lisha Hou & Jijie Li & Hongdao Meng & Muke Zhou & Cairong Zhu, 2018. "Comparison of the flexible parametric survival model and Cox model in estimating Markov transition probabilities using real-world data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, August.
    17. Gordon B. Hazen, 2022. "Augmenting Markov Cohort Analysis to Compute (Co)Variances: Implications for Strength of Cost-Effectiveness," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 3170-3180, November.
    18. Franck Maunoury & Anastasiia Motrunich & Maria Palka-Santini & Stéphanie F Bernatchez & Stéphane Ruckly & Jean-François Timsit, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Thomas A. Trikalinos & Uwe Siebert & Joseph Lau, 2009. "Decision-Analytic Modeling to Evaluate Benefits and Harms of Medical Tests: Uses and Limitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 22-29, September.
    20. Rowan Iskandar, 2018. "A theoretical foundation for state-transition cohort models in health decision analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:2:p:194-207. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.