A Model-Independent Method to Determine Restricted Mean Survival Time in the Analysis of Survival Curves

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Messori ◽  
Vera Damuzzo ◽  
Laura Agnoletto ◽  
Luca Leonardi ◽  
Marco Chiumente ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-319
Author(s):  
Szilard Nemes

Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) is well-established, but underutilized measure that can be interpreted as the average event-free survival time up to a pre-specified time point. In the last decade RMST received substantial attention and was advocated as an alternative for the Hazard Rate when the proportionality assumption is not met. Currently studies with time-to-evet outcomes routinely report survival curves and hazard rates. Research planning assumes extraction of comparative effect measures and variances that facilitates sample size calculations. Here we assessed the possibility of extracting clinically meaningful effect size estimates for RMST based research plans from studies that report survival curves and hazard rates. This assessment was based on simulations using Exponential and Weibull distributions. The simulations suggest that under certain conditions meaningful RMST effect size estimates can be extrapolated form published hazard rates. However, in cases when the proportionality assumption is in doubt (i.e. when RMST have most utility) extraction of meaningful estimates is not feasible.


Author(s):  
Junshan Qiu ◽  
Dali Zhou ◽  
H.M. Jim Hung ◽  
John Lawrence ◽  
Steven Bai

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 476-484
Author(s):  
Daniel Gallacher ◽  
Peter Kimani ◽  
Nigel Stallard

Previous work examined the suitability of relying on routine methods of model selection when extrapolating survival data in a health technology appraisal setting. Here we explore solutions to improve reliability of restricted mean survival time (RMST) estimates from trial data by assessing model plausibility and implementing model averaging. We compare our previous methods of selecting a model for extrapolation using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Our methods of model averaging include using equal weighting across models falling within established threshold ranges for AIC and BIC and using BIC-based weighted averages. We apply our plausibility assessment and implement model averaging to the output of our previous simulations, where 10,000 runs of 12 trial-based scenarios were examined. We demonstrate that removing implausible models from consideration reduces the mean squared error associated with the restricted mean survival time (RMST) estimate from each selection method and increases the percentage of RMST estimates that were within 10% of the RMST from the parameters of the sampling distribution. The methods of averaging were superior to selecting a single optimal extrapolation, aside from some of the exponential scenarios where BIC already selected the exponential model. The averaging methods with wide criterion-based thresholds outperformed BIC-weighted averaging in the majority of scenarios. We conclude that model averaging approaches should feature more widely in the appraisal of health technologies where extrapolation is influential and considerable uncertainty is present. Where data demonstrate complicated underlying hazard rates, funders should account for the additional uncertainty associated with these extrapolations in their decision making. Extended follow-up from trials should be encouraged and used to review prices of therapies to ensure a fair price is paid.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Hasegawa ◽  
Saori Misawa ◽  
Shintaro Nakagawa ◽  
Shinichi Tanaka ◽  
Takanori Tanase ◽  
...  

Biometrics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 575-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi Hyun Lee ◽  
Jing Ning ◽  
Yu Shen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document