IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i12d10.1007_s40273-024-01429-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation of an Algorithm for the Selection of Flexible Survival Models for Cancer Immunotherapies: Pass or Fail?

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas R. Latimer

    (Delta Hat Limited
    University of Sheffield)

  • Kurt Taylor

    (Delta Hat Limited)

  • Anthony J. Hatswell

    (Delta Hat Limited
    University College London)

  • Sophia Ho

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

  • Gabriel Okorogheye

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

  • Clara Chen

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

  • Inkyu Kim

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

  • John Borrill

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

  • David Bertwistle

    (Bristol Myers Squibb)

Abstract

Background and Objective Accurately extrapolating survival beyond trial follow-up is essential in a health technology assessment where model choice often substantially impacts estimates of clinical and cost effectiveness. Evidence suggests standard parametric models often provide poor fits to long-term data from immuno-oncology trials. Palmer et al. developed an algorithm to aid the selection of more flexible survival models for these interventions. We assess the usability of the algorithm, identify areas for improvement and evaluate whether it effectively identifies models capable of accurate extrapolation. Methods We applied the Palmer algorithm to the CheckMate-649 trial, which investigated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the algorithm’s performance by comparing survival estimates from identified models using the 12-month data cut to survival observed in the 48-month data cut. Results The Palmer algorithm offers a systematic procedure for model selection, encouraging detailed analyses and ensuring that crucial stages in the selection process are not overlooked. In our study, a range of models were identified as potentially appropriate for extrapolating survival, but only flexible parametric non-mixture cure models provided extrapolations that were plausible and accurately predicted subsequently observed survival. The algorithm could be improved with minor additions around the specification of hazard plots and setting out plausibility criteria. Conclusions The Palmer algorithm provides a systematic framework for identifying suitable survival models, and for defining plausibility criteria for extrapolation validity. Using the algorithm ensures that model selection is based on explicit justification and evidence, which could reduce discordance in health technology appraisals.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas R. Latimer & Kurt Taylor & Anthony J. Hatswell & Sophia Ho & Gabriel Okorogheye & Clara Chen & Inkyu Kim & John Borrill & David Bertwistle, 2024. "An Evaluation of an Algorithm for the Selection of Flexible Survival Models for Cancer Immunotherapies: Pass or Fail?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1395-1412, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01429-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01429-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01429-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01429-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Bell Gorrod & Ben Kearns & John Stevens & Praveen Thokala & Alexander Labeit & Nicholas Latimer & David Tyas & Ahmed Sowdani, 2019. "A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 899-909, November.
    2. Patricia Guyot & Anthony E. Ades & Matthew Beasley & Béranger Lueza & Jean-Pierre Pignon & Nicky J. Welton, 2017. "Extrapolation of Survival Curves from Cancer Trials Using External Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(4), pages 353-366, May.
    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. Daniel Gallacher & Peter Kimani & Nigel Stallard, 2022. "Biased Survival Predictions When Appraising Health Technologies in Heterogeneous Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 109-120, January.
    2. Zhaojing Che & Nathan Green & Gianluca Baio, 2023. "Blended Survival Curves: A New Approach to Extrapolation for Time-to-Event Outcomes from Clinical Trials in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 299-310, April.
    3. Ash Bullement & Matthew D. Stevenson & Gianluca Baio & Gemma E. Shields & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Incorporate External Evidence into Trial-Based Survival Extrapolations for Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 610-620, July.
    4. Taihang Shao & Mingye Zhao & Leyi Liang & Lizheng Shi & Wenxi Tang, 2023. "Impact of Extrapolation Model Choices on the Structural Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Checkmate 067," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 383-392, May.
    5. Nicholas R. Latimer & Mark J. Rutherford, 2024. "Mixture and Non-mixture Cure Models for Health Technology Assessment: What You Need to Know," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(10), pages 1073-1090, October.
    6. M. Campioni & I. Agirrezabal & R. Hajek & J. Minarik & L. Pour & I. Spicka & S. Gonzalez-McQuire & P. Jandova & V. Maisnar, 2020. "Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 219-233, March.
    7. Ash Bullement & Mark Edmondson-Jones & Patricia Guyot & Nicky J. Welton & Gianluca Baio & Matthew Stevenson & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2024. "MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation—A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1317-1327, December.
    8. Alexina J. Mason & Manuel Gomes & James Carpenter & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Flexible Bayesian longitudinal models for cost‐effectiveness analyses with informative missing data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3138-3158, December.
    9. Daniel Gallacher & Peter Kimani & Nigel Stallard, 2021. "Extrapolating Parametric Survival Models in Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 37-50, January.
    10. M. A. Chaudhary & M. Edmondson-Jones & G. Baio & E. Mackay & J. R. Penrod & D. J. Sharpe & G. Yates & S. Rafiq & K. Johannesen & M. K. Siddiqui & J. Vanderpuye-Orgle & A. Briggs, 2023. "Use of Advanced Flexible Modeling Approaches for Survival Extrapolation from Early Follow-up Data in two Nivolumab Trials in Advanced NSCLC with Extended Follow-up," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 91-109, January.
    11. Kun Kim & Michael Sweeting & Nils Wilking & Linus Jönsson, 2024. "General Population Mortality Adjustment in Survival Extrapolation of Cancer Trials: Exploring Plausibility and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer in Sweden," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 843-853, October.
    12. Philip Cooney & Arthur White, 2023. "Direct Incorporation of Expert Opinion into Parametric Survival Models to Inform Survival Extrapolation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 325-336, April.

    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:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01429-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.