Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials - Extrapolation with patient-level data: Inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 743-754

  Latimer, Nicholas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Modeling; Oncology; Overall survival; Pharmacoeconomics; Resource allocation; Survival analysis; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COST; HUMAN; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL; ARTICLE; COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS; MODEL; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHARMACOECONOMICS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

ALGORITHMS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS; MODELING; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHARMACOECONOMICS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84884635944     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12472398     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf
3. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2006.
4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 1996.
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. 3rd ed. Ottawa, Canada; 2006.
6. Willan AR, Chen EB, Cook RJ, Lin DY. Incremental net benefit in randomized clinical trials with quality-adjusted survival. Stat Med. 2003;22:353-62.
7. Willan AR, Lin Dy, Cook RJ, Chen EB. Using inverse-weighting in cost-effectiveness analysis with censored data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11:539-51.
8. Willan AR, Lin DY. Incremental net benefit in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001;20:1563-74.
9. Main C, Pitt M, Moxham T, Stein K. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of Rituximab for the 1st line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: an evidence review of the submission from Roche. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth on behalf of NICE. January 2009. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12039/43572/ 43572.pdf
10. Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth on behalf of NICE. May 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11817/41488/41488.pdf
11. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Ward S, Eggington S, Hind D, Hummel S. Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(17):2867-75.
12. Guyot P, Welton NJ, Ouwens JN, Ades AE. Survival time outcomes in randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses: the parallel universes of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Value Health. 2011;14:640-6.
13. Connock M, Hyde C, Moore D. Cautions regarding the fitting and interpretation of survival curves. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29(10):827-37.
14. Davies A, Briggs A, Schneider J, et al. The ends justify the mean: outcome measures for estimating the value of new cancer therapies. Health Outcomes Res Med. 2012(3);1:e25-236.
15. Ouwens MJNM, Philips Z, Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of parametric survival curves. Research Synthesis Methods. 2010;1: 258-71.
16. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:61.
17. Demeris N, Lunn D, Sharples LD. Survival extrapolation using the poly-Weibull model. Stat Methods Med Res. Published online November 21, 2011.
18. Demeris N, Sharples LD. Bayesian evidence synthesis to extrapolate survival estimates in cost-effectiveness studies. Stat Med. 2006;25:1960-75.
19. Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG. Survival models in health economic evaluations: balancing fit and parsimony to improve prediction. Int J Biostat. 2010;6(1):34.
20. Royston P, Parmar MKB. Flexible proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2002;21:2175-97.
21. Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.
22. Wilson J, Connock M, Song F, et al. Imatinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours - a systematic review and economic evaluation. Produced by West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration, University of Birmingham on behalf of NICE. October 2003. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11547/ 32966/32966.pdf
23. Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth on behalf of NICE. September 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11619/34040/34040.pdf
24. Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth on behalf of NICE. May 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11817/41488/41488.pdf
25. Bond M, Hoyle M, Moxham T, Napier M, Anderson R. The clinical and costeffectiveness of sunitinib for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: a critique of the submission from Pfizer. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth on behalf of NICE. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12040/43430/ 43430.pdf
26. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Price A. The effectiveness and costeffectiveness of imatinib for first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase. Produced by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, University of Exeter and Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton on behalf of NICE. March 2003. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11515/32751/32751.pdf
27. Main C, Ginnelly L, Griffin S, et al. Topetecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for secondline or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Produced by Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York on behalf of NICE. September 2004. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11553/33023/33023.pdf
28. Hind D, Tappenden P, Tumur I, Eggington S, Sutcliffe P, Ryan A. Technology assessment report commissioned by the HTA Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: the use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation (review of Guidance No. 33), Addendum: economic evaluation of irinotecan and oxaliplatin for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Produced by The School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. January 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/live/11561/33130/33130.pdf
29. Roche Products Limited. Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed follicular lymphoma, Roche submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. June 2007. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ nicemedia/live/11730/38897/38897.pdf
30. Roche Products Limited. Rituximab for the 1st line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, Roche submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. November 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/live/12039/43581/43581.pdf
31. Pfizer Limited. Single technology appraisal of Sunitinib for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours. October 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12040/43440/43440.pdf
32. Dundar Y, McLeod C, Boland A, et al. Rituximab for the first line treatment of stage III-IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, produced by Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool on behalf of NICE. April 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/ 11591/46698/46698.pdf
33. Ortho Biotec Limited. Velcade ® (bortezomib) for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients at first relapse, manufacturer submission. July 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.nice. org.uk/nicemedia/live/11713/35151/35151. pdf
34. Green C, Bryant J, Takeda A, et al. Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients. Produced by Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton on behalf of NICE. April 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11713/35150/35150.pdf
35. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Cole BF. Parametric extrapolation of survival estimates with applications to quality of life evaluation of treatments. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:485-99.
36. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, EGR Addendum: pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), University of Liverpool. June 2009. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12045/45084/45084.pdf
37. Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival analysis part III: multivariate data analysis - choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(4):605-11.
38. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group. Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation, University of Liverpool addendum to the assessment report. March 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11698/36840/ 36840.pdf
39. Latimer N. NICEDSUTechnical Support Document 14: Undertaking survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials - extrapolation with patient-level data. 2011. Available from: URL: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk