Improving Long-Term Survival Assessment in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Examining Excess Hazard Methods and Cure Models in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study
Author(s)
Pandey S1, Bajaj P2, Sharma A3, Singh B4, Kaur S2
1Pharmacoevidence, SAS Nagar, Mohali, PB, India, 2Heorlytics, Mohali, India, 3Pharmacoevidence, SAS Nagar Mohali, India, 4Pharmacoevidence, SAS Nagar Mohali, PB, India
OBJECTIVES: Assessing the influence of different survival extrapolation techniques on cost-effectiveness analyses is crucial. This is particularly significant in situations where the need for projections extends beyond clinical trial durations, given the constraints of limited follow-up. This research aims to recognize and overcome obstacles related to parametric survival models by incorporating general population mortality rates directly into the modelling process through an excess hazard (EH) model.
METHODS: To incorporate the excess hazard (EH) directly into the modeling process, a clinical trial assessing a treatment with potential curative properties in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was selected. Seven standard parametric models were fitted to overall survival and progression-free survival data. The same seven models were subsequently applied within the EH framework, both with and without a cure parameter, integrating general population mortality rates to prevent unrealistic projections. The EH model separates mortality rates into background (expected) and excess rates, enabling more realistic long-term projections. Model fit evaluation was assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and visual inspection. The fitting of models and extrapolations was conducted using the "flexsurv" and "flexsurvcure" packages in R.
RESULTS: Based on the AIC and visual inspection, the Log-normal model exhibited the best fit in both frameworks-standard parametric model (AIC = 799.8) and EH framework (AIC = 765.4). The introduction of a cure assumption in EH framework led to an overall improvement in the goodness of fit results for most parametric models, except for the Exponential and Gompertz. Additionally, comparisons of root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE) further affirmed the improved fit of EH models for specific parametric distributions.
CONCLUSIONS: As excess hazard may decrease over time, extrapolating excess hazard beyond trial follow-up is easier than all-cause hazards, especially in oncology trials. EH cure models enhance stability and reliability, particularly when cure is plausible.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 6, S1 (June 2024)
Acceptance Code
P31
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Oncology