Estimating the new event-free survival
Vilsmeier, J.; Saadati, M.; Miah, K.; Benner, A.; Doehner, H.; Beyersmann, J.
Show abstract
BackgroundIn acute myeloid leukemia studies, event-free survival (EFS) is defined as time until treatment failure, relapse, or death, whichever occurs first. Since 2020 and 2022, respectively, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European LeukemiaNet recommend analysing treatment failures as day-1 events. This data modification can lead to a potentially large drop in the estimated EFS at day 1. If censoring occurs, the Kaplan-Meier estimator obtained from the recoded data underestimates this drop. Our aim is to obtain an unbiased estimate for EFS as basis for further inference. MethodsWe define "event on day 1" as one event type and " event after day 1" as a competing event in the original data and use the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence curve to estimate event-specific transition probabilities, which are combined in one EFS estimate. To analyse effects on day 1 treatment failure and other post-day-1 EFS events separately, a formal link to cure models is established by equating treatment failures with the "cured" proportion in cure model terminology. Additionally, a variance estimator, confidence intervals, confidence bands, and simultaneous testing procedures are derived. ResultsOur new estimation method differs from the Kaplan-Meier estimator in settings in which some treatment failures are censored, as in the interim analysis of the AMLSG 09-09 study. If almost no treatment failures are censored, the two estimation methods do not differ. The cure model and simultaneous testing are able to estimate effects on day 1 treatment failure and other post-day-1 EFS events separately and function independently of whether data is modified. ConclusionsThe Kaplan-Meier estimator evaluated on the recoded data underestimates the drop at day 1 if treatment failures are censored. With sufficient follow-up, this bias disappears, and results coincide with our novel approach.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Health Utility Adjusted Survival: a Composite Endpoint for Clinical Trial Designs 94%
- Adjusting for time of infection or positive test when estimating the risk of a post-infection outcome in an epidemic 93%
- Two-Stage Multivariate Mendelian Randomization on Multiple Outcomes with Mixed Distributions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 94%
- Time-to-event estimation of birth year prevalence trends: a method to enable investigating the etiology of childhood disorders including autism 93%
- Hospital Length of Stay: A cross-Specialty Analysis and Beta-Geometric Model 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-state network meta-analysis of cause-specific survival data 95%
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 95%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Graphing and reporting heterogeneous treatment effects through reference classes 95%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 94%
- Machine learning for randomised controlled trials: identifying treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 96%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 95%
- Comparison of Bayesian networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.