Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis
Béranger Lueza,Federico Rotolo,Julia Bonastre,Jean-Pierre Pignon,Stefan Michiels
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0137-z
2016-03-29
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Abstract:BackgroundThe difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstDt∗$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$), the area between two survival curves up to time horizon t∗$$ {t}^{\ast } $$, 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 rmstDt∗$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$ from an IPD meta-analysis.MethodsWe 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∗$$ {t}^{\ast } $$, 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.ResultsThe 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 rmstDt∗$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$, except with non-proportional hazards at t∗$$ {t}^{\ast } $$= 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 rmstDt∗$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$. Overall, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects formed the best compromise in terms of bias and variance. The rmstDt∗=10years$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast },=,10,\kern0.5em ,\mathrm{years}\right) $$ 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.ConclusionsWe 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.
health care sciences & services