Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis

38Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD t∗), the area between two survival curves up to time horizon t∗, is often used in cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. A challenge in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses is to account for the trial effect. We aimed at comparing different methods to estimate the rmstD t∗ from an IPD meta-analysis. Methods: We compared four methods: the area between Kaplan-Meier curves (experimental vs. control arm) ignoring the trial effect (Naïve Kaplan-Meier); the area between Peto curves computed at quintiles of event times (Peto-quintile); the weighted average of the areas between either trial-specific Kaplan-Meier curves (Pooled Kaplan-Meier) or trial-specific exponential curves (Pooled Exponential). In a simulation study, we varied the between-trial heterogeneity for the baseline hazard and for the treatment effect (possibly correlated), the overall treatment effect, the time horizon t∗, the number of trials and of patients, the use of fixed or DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, and the proportionality of hazards. We compared the methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard errors. We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) and its updated version MAC-NPC2 for illustration that included respectively 1,975 and 5,028 patients in 11 and 23 comparisons. Results: The Naïve Kaplan-Meier method was unbiased, whereas the Pooled Exponential and, to a much lesser extent, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier methods showed a bias with non-proportional hazards. The Peto-quintile method underestimated the rmstD t∗, except with non-proportional hazards at t∗ = 5 years. In the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, all methods except the Pooled Kaplan-Meier and the Pooled Exponential with DerSimonian-Laird random effects underestimated the standard error of the rmstD t∗. Overall, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects formed the best compromise in terms of bias and variance. The rmstD (t∗ = 10 years ) estimated with the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method was 0.49 years (95 % CI: [-0.06;1.03], p = 0.08) when comparing radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in the MAC-NPC and 0.59 years (95 % CI: [0.34;0.84], p < 0.0001) in the MAC-NPC2. Conclusions: We recommend the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects to estimate the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual-patient data meta-analysis.

Figures

  • Table 1 Simulation results for comparisons of methods in estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time. Scenario with 5 trials and 200 patients per trial and with proportional hazards
  • Fig. 1 Graphical comparison at 5 years (panel a) and at 10 years (panel b) of methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard error with proportional hazards; 5 trials and 200 patients per trial; β = −0.7. Black squares represent the average bias of the rmstD estimated by each method for a particular scenario. Black and purple vertical lines represent the 95 % confidence intervals of the bias based on respectively the empirical and average standard errors. The horizontal red line indicates the absence of bias in the rmstD estimation. β: Size of treatment effect (=log(HR)); σ2: baseline hazard heterogeneity; τ2: treatment effect heterogeneity; CI: Confidence interval; rmstD: difference in restricted mean survival time
  • Fig. 2 Graphical comparison at 5 years (panel a) and at 10 years (panel b) of methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard error with non-proportional hazards; 5 trials and 200 patients per trial; β = −0.7. Black squares represent the average bias of the rmstD estimated by each method for a particular scenario. Black and purple vertical lines represent the 95 % confidence intervals of the bias based on respectively the empirical and average standard errors. The horizontal red line indicates the absence of bias in the rmstD estimation. β: Size of treatment effect (=log(HR)); σ2: baseline hazard heterogeneity; τ2: treatment effect heterogeneity; CI: Confidence interval; rmstD: difference in restricted mean survival time
  • Table 2 Simulation results for comparisons of methods in estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time. Scenario with 5 trials and 200 patients per trial, and with non-proportional hazards
  • Table 3 Results for comparisons of methods in estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD) in MAC-NPC and MAC-NPC2 meta-analyses
  • Fig. 3 Forest plot for differences in restricted mean survival time estimated at 10 years using the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with random effects applied to the MAC-NPC meta-analysis. Each trial is represented by a square, the center of which denotes the difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD) for that trial comparison, with the horizontal lines showing the 95 % confidence intervals (CI). The size of the square is directly proportional to the amount of information contributed by the trial. The diamond represents the overall rmstD, with the center denoting the rmstD and the extremities the 95 % CI. The rmstDs are expressed in year
  • Fig. 4 Difference in restricted mean survival time estimated using the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with random effects as a function of the time horizon t* in the MAC-NPC meta-analysis. The solid black line represents the rmstD(t*) plotted as a function of the horizon t*. The dashed horizontal line indicates the absence of a treatment effect (rmstD(t*) = 0). The grey area corresponds to the pointwise 95 % confidence interval. MAC-NPC: Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma; rmstD: difference in restricted mean survival time

References Powered by Scopus

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32959Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals

4469Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): An update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients

2503Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

IPDfromKM: reconstruct individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves

357Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis

265Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data from Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

102Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lueza, B., Rotolo, F., Bonastre, J., Pignon, J. P., & Michiels, S. (2016). Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0137-z

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘240481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

44%

Researcher 12

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 7

18%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

46%

Mathematics 9

35%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 3

12%

Social Sciences 2

8%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 259

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0