Modeling relative survival in the presence of incomplete data
Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival
description
Transcript of Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival
![Page 1: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival
Gerhardt Pohl, Li LiEli Lilly and Company
![Page 2: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ObjectivesIn this talk we focus on a special case of informative missing data, patients who cease to provide longitudinal patient reported outcomes (PRO’s) due to death. We compare various commonly used methods for analyzing such data and propose an approach based on the proportion of patients at various levels.
![Page 3: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Overview• Problem Statement• Limitations of Current Methods• (Brief Aside on Plotting Individual Patient
Profiles)• Proposal• Summary and Discussion of Future
Directions
![Page 4: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Problem Statement• Consider QoL or other PRO’s collected over
time.• We desire to summarize the mean profile of
the scores at the various time points.• However, patients often fail to complete all
assessments due to early death.• Further complicating the situation is
informative censoring. Patient’s scores decline as they approach death, but they also often fail to report scores as they decline.
![Page 5: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Non-Informative vs. Informative Censoring
Solid lines indicate observed data; and dotted, missing data.
Non-Informative Informative
![Page 6: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Commonly Used Methods
• Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)
• Area Under the Curve (AUC)• Survival Methods• Latent Effects Models
![Page 7: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Limitations of MMRM• Consider the model with unique mean and between-
patient variability at each time point with possible within-patient correlation in the scores over the time.
• Underlying assumption is that patients share same trajectory of score over time with some patients only contributing a portion of the profile.
• Variability is modeled only in outcome and not in time of observation which is assumed fixed with common mean outcome at each observation time.
• However, in reality, patients are experiencing accelerated time to failure with informative censoring.
![Page 8: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MMRM Unbiased in the Non-Informative Setting
Solid lines indicate observed data; and dotted, missing data.
Non-Informative Informative
![Page 9: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Complex Profile of Real-Life PRO’s in Oncology
Burden
Time
Untreated
Treated
Chemotherapy
![Page 10: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Complex Profile Befuddles Time to Worsening Analyses
• Time to event analysis appears ideal for handling right-censored data.
• However, of worsening in treated occurs immediately at outset of cytotoxic chemotherapy.
![Page 11: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Causal Diagram
Treatment
PROAE
Disease
Cycle 1
Treatment
PROAE
Disease
Cycle 2
Etc.
DiseaseMeasure
AEMeasure
DiseaseMeasure
AEMeasure
![Page 12: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Plotting Individual Patient Profiles: Spaghetti Plots
Week
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sym
ptom
Sco
re
0
1
2
3
4
5
Symptom scores (discrete 0-4) for 300 patients versus time.
![Page 13: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Plotting Individual Patient Profiles: Lasagna Plots
• Bruce J. Swihart, Brian Caffo, Bryan D. James, Matthew Strand, Brian S. Schwartz, and Naresh M. Punjab. “Lasagna Plots: A Saucy Alternative to Spaghetti Plots”. Epidemiology, Vol. 21, Number 5, Sept. 2010.
• Remap intensity of score from vertical axis to a color and use the location on vertical axis to denote individual patient.
![Page 14: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Each Row is a PatientWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
![Page 15: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Each Row is a PatientWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
Hint of early tolerability burden
![Page 16: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Sorted by Treatment GroupWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
Control
Treated
![Page 17: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Sorted by Treatment Group and Duration of Follow-Up
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Duration
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Duration
![Page 18: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Sorted by Treatment Group and Duration of Follow-Up
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Duration
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Duration
Poorer scores near termination
![Page 19: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Additional Features• Sorting by characteristics of plotted data and/or by
external characteristics• Annotation of discrete events and events with duration.• Filtering rows to subsets of patients• Automated aggregation of patients with similar profiles
to allow more than one patient per horizontal band.• Side panels showing related data, e.g., Kaplan-Meier
plots, proportion of data plotted.• Special thanks to Wei Wang, Eli Lilly and Co.,
Advanced Analytics Visualization.
![Page 20: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Limitations of AUC Methods
Score
Time0 1 2
0
0.5
1.0Patient 1
Patient 2
Two AUC-Equivalent Patients
• An approach to compensate for varying lengths of survival is to calculate area under the curve or score time values (cf. QALY).
• Note that death is mapped to zero score.• AUC yields a complete ordering of score and survival.• Exchangeability of quality and time is questionable.• Induces linearity in PRO scale that may not be realistic.
![Page 21: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Probability-Based Methods• Rather than average scores, summarize as
proportion of patients at various levels at each time point.
0 1 2 3 40%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Score=4
Score=3
Score=2
Score=1
Time
Percent of Patients
n = 10 10 8 6 6
0 1 2 3 40.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
Average
Time
Scoren = 10 10 8 6 6
vs.
![Page 22: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Incorporating Survival• Death can be appended to low end of score.
0 1 2 3 40.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
Average
Time
Scoren = 10 10 8 6 6
vs.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 1 2 3 4
Survival Prob.
Time
0 1 2 3 40%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Score=4
Score=3
Score=2
Score=1
Dead
Time
Percent of Patients
n = 10 10 10 10 10
![Page 23: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Summaries of Categorical Probabilities
• Cumulative Proportion of Time in Category – One can “integrate” over time to obtain the
cumulative proportion of time the group spends in each PRO level.
0 1 2 3 40%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Score=4
Score=3
Score=2
Score=1
Dead
Time
Percent of Patients
Marginal0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% Proportion of Group
Time
![Page 24: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Underlying Nature of DataPatient Time in Category
1 (1.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0.0)2 (0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 4.0, 0.0)3 (0.0, 1.0, 1.0, 3.0, 0.0)4 (0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0, 3.0)
Group-Level (1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 9.0, 3.0)
Proportion of time-person spent in each CategoryGroup-Level (1/20, 3/20, 4/20, 9/20, 3/20)
Treatment (p ) (p1, p2, p3, p4, p5 )
Control (q ) (q1 , q2 , q3 , q4, q5)
∑𝑖=1
5
𝑝𝑖=1𝑎𝑛𝑑∑𝑖=1
5
𝑞𝑖=1.𝑝5=𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 .(𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑛 h𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑡 )
![Page 25: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Need an Ordering Metric for Ranking which Summary Vectors are “Better”
3 possible methods, each has pros and cons.
![Page 26: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
1. Majorization Order
• Introduce majorization order over all cumulative levels of the state categories
• Treatment , p , as being better than that of control, q , iff
• Pro: no need to decide weight; includes requirement that patients in treated group survive longer than control group.
• Con: too strong condition.
![Page 27: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
2. Utility or Cost function• Introduce a utility or cost function for each category.
• Treatment group, p , as being better than that of control group, q , iff
where• Pro: reduces comparison of vectors to a single dimension
• Con: • One needs to assign weight between PRO states;• No explicit requirement that survival be better for
treated than control.
![Page 28: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
3. Pseudo Increasing Convex Order (P-ICX order)
– Treatment , p , as being better than that of control, q , iff :
,
Pro: (1) less strong condition than majorization; (2) no need to consider weight between death and PRO states; (3) includes requirement that patients in treated group survive longer than control group.
Con: One needs to assign weight between PRO states.
![Page 29: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
A 3-state example3 health states Good Bad Death
Proportion of time spent in each state
Treatment (p) P1 P2 P3
Control (q) q1 q2 q3
Difference (d=p-q) d1 d2 d3
Treatment group is better in good state.
Treatment group is better in bad state.
Treatment group is better in survival (less proportion of time spent in the state of death).Because:
![Page 30: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Connecting each approach with d. Treatment group is better than control group:
• Cost function (f): c1>c2> c3=0 ( ) ,,
Cost function: ,
• Majorization:
• P-ICX:,
![Page 31: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
3 health states
Good Bad Death
Proportion of time spent
in each state
Trt(p)
P1 (0.29)
P2 (0.71)
P3 (0.0)
Con (q)
q1 (0.30)
q2 (0.5)
q3 (0.5)
Diff. (d=p-q)
d1 (-0.01)
d2 (0.21)
d3 (-0.5)
Majorization: reject that treatment is better than control
P-ICX: accept that treatment is better than control at c=2
![Page 32: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
3 health states
Good Bad Death
Proportion of time spent
in each state
Trt(p)
P1 (0.49)
P2 (0)
P3 (0.51)
Con (q)
q1 (0.0)
q2 (0.97)
q3 (0.03)
Diff. (d=p-q)
d1 (0.49)
d2 (-0.97)
d3 (0.48)
P-ICX: Reject that treatment is better than control at c=2trol
Cost Function: Accept that treatment is better at c=2an
![Page 33: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
P-ICX order is in the middle of majorization and Cost function method regarding acceptance of good PRO performance.
Both majorization order and P-ICX order consider survival benefit.
![Page 34: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Example• Simulated Data
– Two arms: treatment vs. control (1:1)– Sample size: 300.– Survival:
• treatment arm has longer survival rate than control (To show contrast, treatment arm survival rate ~ 1).
– Planned visits: 6 bi-monthly visit. Follow PRO until death or completion of visits, follow patients until death or completion of study (720 days).
![Page 35: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Survival curve
![Page 36: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
• Simulated Data (continued)– Longitudinal categorical QoL scores
• True trend:– Treatment arm has worse QoL score than control
at the first 2-3 cycles, decreased to more tolerable score than control with time going on.
– Control arm has an increasing trend over time– Health status declines faster (PRO score
increases) as they approach death.
• Observed trend (Average of Available Data):– Missing due to death or inability to conduct survey
due to approaching death.
![Page 37: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
True Curve
![Page 38: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Method 1: Naïve Estimator • Average of score at each visit among available patients.• Observed curve gives impression that control arm is better than
treatment arm.
![Page 39: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Method 2: MMRM– Treat score as continuous dependent.– Model separate means at each visit (treatment by visit
interaction) with exchangeable covariance within-patient and independent between-patient.
– Profile is similar to naïve estimator.
![Page 40: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Method 3: AUC method• Area under curve up to 14 months.• [Conclusion]
x1 N Mean Std Dev Std Err Pr > |t|
Control 142 278.3 123.0 10.3236
Treatment 158 542.4 126.1 10.0342 <.0001
P-value: two-sample t-test
![Page 41: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Proposed Method• Select a time period of interest– e.g., 14 months.
• Collapse 5 categories (raw categories: 0-4) to 2 categories (0 or category for scores of 1-4).
• Incorporate death as the worst PRO level.
• Integrate over time to obtain the proportion of time the group spends in each PRO level.
• Adopt P-ICX order to compare PRO and select weight of treatment effect in each level: weight (2,1)->state (0, 1-4).
![Page 42: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Results• Proportion of time spent in each level during 12 months
Weight for raw states: (5,4,3,2,1)
![Page 43: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
d=(-0.06, 0.20)
Quality of Life StatusArms 0 1-4 DeathTreatment 0. 26 0.73 0.0001Control 0.32 0.53 0.15Difference -0.06 0.20 -0.15
![Page 44: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
– One can conduct formal hypothesis test :
– Calculate the vector statistics– gives impression that treatment arm is better than control arm within 12 months since baseline.– P-value: chi square test.
( 0.26
![Page 45: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Summary and Discussion:
• Proposed probability based method to compare PRO between treatments may avoid need for weighting scores in some cases (majorization).
• 3 possible ranking methods for comparing vectors.– Majorization: strongest condition– Cost function: simple concept– P-ICX order: cost function+ improved survival requirement
• Future research: How to choose weight? P-ICX share the same question with cost function.
![Page 46: Summarizing Quality of Life in the Presence of Limited Survival](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815d54550346895dcb5eaf/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
A formal definition of ICX• the distribution of a random variable Y is larger than the
distribution of a random variable X in the increasing convex order, i.e.
X Y , if and only if E{f(X)} E{f(Y )}
holds for all non-decreasing convex functions f for which expectations are defined.
• Insurance and actual science application