IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jnlasa/v112y2017i517p11-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust Treatment Comparison Based on Utilities of Semi-Competing Risks in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. Murray
  • Peter F. Thall
  • Ying Yuan
  • Sarah McAvoy
  • Daniel R. Gomez

Abstract

A design is presented for a randomized clinical trial comparing two second-line treatments, chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus reirradiation, for treatment of recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. The central research question is whether the potential efficacy benefit that adding reirradiation to chemotherapy may provide justifies its potential for increasing the risk of toxicity. The design uses two co-primary outcomes: time to disease progression or death, and time to severe toxicity. Because patients may be given an active third-line treatment at disease progression that confounds second-line treatment effects on toxicity and survival following disease progression, for the purpose of this comparative study follow-up ends at disease progression or death. In contrast, follow-up for disease progression or death continues after severe toxicity, so these are semi-competing risks. A conditionally conjugate Bayesian model that is robust to misspecification is formulated using piecewise exponential distributions. A numerical utility function is elicited from the physicians that characterizes desirabilities of the possible co-primary outcome realizations. A comparative test based on posterior mean utilities is proposed. A simulation study is presented to evaluate test performance for a variety of treatment differences, and a sensitivity assessment to the elicited utility function is performed. General guidelines are given for constructing a design in similar settings, and a computer program for simulation and trial conduct is provided. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. Murray & Peter F. Thall & Ying Yuan & Sarah McAvoy & Daniel R. Gomez, 2017. "Robust Treatment Comparison Based on Utilities of Semi-Competing Risks in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(517), pages 11-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jnlasa:v:112:y:2017:i:517:p:11-23
    DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1176926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01621459.2016.1176926
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01621459.2016.1176926?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. S. A. Murphy, 2003. "Optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 331-355, May.
    2. Lu Wang & Andrea Rotnitzky & Xihong Lin & Randall E. Millikan & Peter F. Thall, 2012. "Evaluation of Viable Dynamic Treatment Regimes in a Sequentially Randomized Trial of Advanced Prostate Cancer," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(498), pages 493-508, June.
    3. Satoshi Morita & Peter F. Thall & Peter Müller, 2008. "Determining the Effective Sample Size of a Parametric Prior," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 595-602, June.
    4. Ying Yuan & Guosheng Yin, 2009. "Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(5), pages 719-736, December.
    5. Stephen G. Walker & Bani K. Mallick, 1997. "Hierarchical Generalized Linear Models and Frailty Models with Bayesian Nonparametric Mixing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 845-860.
    6. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Thomas M. Braun & Muzaffar H. Qazilbash, 2013. "Using Joint Utilities of the Times to Response and Toxicity to Adaptively Optimize Schedule–Dose Regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 673-682, September.
    7. Juhee Lee & Peter F. Thall & Yuan Ji & Peter Müller, 2015. "Bayesian Dose-Finding in Two Treatment Cycles Based on the Joint Utility of Efficacy and Toxicity," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(510), pages 711-722, June.
    8. Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead, 2014. "Introduction," Economia & lavoro, Carocci editore, issue 2, pages 5-8.
    9. Luis E. Nieto‐Barajas & Stephen G. Walker, 2002. "Markov Beta and Gamma Processes for Modelling Hazard Rates," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 29(3), pages 413-424, September.
    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. Yifei Zhang & Sha Cao & Chi Zhang & Ick Hoon Jin & Yong Zang, 2021. "A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II clinical trial design with late‐onset competing risk outcomes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 796-808, 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. Emma Gerard & Sarah Zohar & Hoai‐Thu Thai & Christelle Lorenzato & Marie‐Karelle Riviere & Moreno Ursino, 2022. "Bayesian dose regimen assessment in early phase oncology incorporating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 300-312, March.
    2. Antonio Lijoi & Igor Prunster, 2009. "Models beyond the Dirichlet process," Quaderni di Dipartimento 103, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods.
    3. Jincheng Shen & Lu Wang & Jeremy M. G. Taylor, 2017. "Estimation of the optimal regime in treatment of prostate cancer recurrence from observational data using flexible weighting models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 635-645, June.
    4. Xinyang Huang & Jin Xu, 2020. "Estimating individualized treatment rules with risk constraint," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1310-1318, December.
    5. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Ralph G. Zinner, 2017. "Parametric dose standardization for optimizing two-agent combinations in a phase I–II trial with ordinal outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(1), pages 201-224, January.
    6. Nina Zhou & Lu Wang & Daniel Almirall, 2023. "Estimating tree‐based dynamic treatment regimes using observational data with restricted treatment sequences," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2260-2271, September.
    7. Nieto-Barajas, Luis E. & Walker, Stephen G., 2007. "A Bayesian semi-parametric bivariate failure time model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6102-6113, August.
    8. Michael P. Wallace & Erica E. M. Moodie, 2015. "Doubly‐robust dynamic treatment regimen estimation via weighted least squares," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 636-644, September.
    9. Bhattacharjee, Arnab & Bhattacharjee, Madhuchhanda, 2007. "Bayesian Analysis of Hazard Regression Models under Order Restrictions on Covariate Effects and Ageing," MPRA Paper 3938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. 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.
    11. Yebin Tao & Lu Wang, 2017. "Adaptive contrast weighted learning for multi-stage multi-treatment decision-making," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 145-155, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Jin Wang & Donglin Zeng & D. Y. Lin, 2022. "Semiparametric single-index models for optimal treatment regimens with censored outcomes," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 744-763, October.
    14. Shonosuke Sugasawa & Hisashi Noma, 2021. "Efficient screening of predictive biomarkers for individual treatment selection," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 249-257, March.
    15. Ji Liu, 2024. "Education legislations that equalize: a study of compulsory schooling law reforms in post-WWII United States," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Jingxiang Chen & Yufeng Liu & Donglin Zeng & Rui Song & Yingqi Zhao & Michael R. Kosorok, 2016. "Comment," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(515), pages 942-947, July.
    17. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.
    18. Jelena Bradic & Weijie Ji & Yuqian Zhang, 2021. "High-dimensional Inference for Dynamic Treatment Effects," Papers 2110.04924, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    19. Peng Yang & Yuansong Zhao & Lei Nie & Jonathon Vallejo & Ying Yuan, 2023. "SAM: Self‐adapting mixture prior to dynamically borrow information from historical data in clinical trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 2857-2868, December.
    20. Roland Brown & Yingling Fan & Kirti Das & Julian Wolfson, 2021. "Iterated multisource exchangeability models for individualized inference with an application to mobile sensor data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 401-412, 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:taf:jnlasa:v:112:y:2017:i:517:p:11-23. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UASA20 .

    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.