Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of comparative effectiveness research Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.57264/cer-2023-0175
Alessandria Struebing, C. McKibbon, H. Ruan, Emma K. Mackay, N. Dennis, Russanthy Velummailum, P. He, Yoko Tanaka, Y. Xiong, Aaron Springford, M. Rosenlund
{"title":"Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer","authors":"Alessandria Struebing, C. McKibbon, H. Ruan, Emma K. Mackay, N. Dennis, Russanthy Velummailum, P. He, Yoko Tanaka, Y. Xiong, Aaron Springford, M. Rosenlund","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21–1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73–1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08–1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86–1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21–1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73–1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08–1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86–1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用贝叶斯借法增强外部对照臂:一线非小细胞肺癌案例研究
目的:本研究旨在通过应用贝叶斯借用(BB)方法,利用一线非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的历史临床试验数据,增强由真实世界数据(RWD)构建的外部对照臂(ECA),从而提高比较效果估计值,并讨论所遇到的挑战。材料与方法:使用 ConcertAI Patient360™ 构建了一线非小细胞肺癌随机对照试验 (RCT) 的 ECA,以评估在贝伐珠单抗不合适的亚群中使用西妥昔单抗或不使用西妥昔单抗的化疗情况。采用卡方匹配法匹配治疗组(西妥昔单抗+化疗)和ECA的患者特征。总生存期(OS)作为主要结果,采用 Cox 比例危险度法(PH)进行评估。使用Weibull PH参数化下的静态功率先验进行BB,借用权重从0.0到1.0,并从历史对照试验中增加ECA。结果构建的 ECA 得出的总生存期(OS)危险比(HR)(HR = 1.53;95% CI:1.21-1.93)高于在 RCT 匹配人群中观察到的结果(HR = 0.91;95% CI:0.73-1.13)。加入 BB 后,OS HR 有所下降(HR = 1.30;95% CI:1.08-1.54,借用权重 = 1.0)。通过历史对照将 BB 应用于增强 RCT 对照组,与单独的 RCT 匹配人群相比,提高了观察到的 HR 估计值的精确度(1.03;95% CI:0.86-1.22,借用权重 = 1.0)。结论在本研究中,RWD ECA 无法成功复制所选 RCT 匹配人群的 OS 估计值。无法复制的原因可能是未测量的混杂因素以及时间段、随访和后续治疗的差异。尽管有这些发现,我们还是展示了 BB 如何提高比较效应估算的精确度,如何作为偏倚评估工具提供潜在帮助,以及如何在有适当外部数据源的情况下减轻传统方法的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Dependent censoring bias assessment using inverse probability of censoring weights: Type 2 diabetes mellitus risk in patients initiating bisoprolol versus other antihypertensives in a Clinical Practice Research Datalink cohort study. Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and HTA: part 5. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with volume computed tomography in Portugal. Use of transportability methods for real-world evidence generation: a review of current applications. Ravulizumab for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis: a plain language summary of three studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1