Abstract

Objectives

To compare finite mixture models with common survival models with respect to how well they fit heterogenous data used to estimate mean survival times required for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

Publicly available overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were digitized to produce nonproprietary data. Regression models based on the following distributions were fit to the data: Weibull, lognormal, log-logistic, generalized F, generalized gamma, Gompertz, mixture of 2 Weibulls, and mixture of 3 Weibulls. A second set of analyses was performed based on data in which patients who had not experienced an event by 30 months were censored. Model performance was compared based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC).

Results

For PFS, the 3-Weibull mixture (AIC = 479.94) and 2-Weibull mixture (AIC = 488.24) models outperformed other models by more than 40 points and produced the most accurate estimates of mean survival times. For OS, the AIC values for all models were similar (all within 4 points). The means for the mixture 3-Weibulls mixture model (17.60 months) and the 2-Weibull mixture model (17.59 months) were the closest to the Kaplan-Meier mean estimate of (17.58 months). The results and conclusions from the censored analysis of PFS were similar to the uncensored PFS analysis. On the basis of extrapolated mean OS, all models produced estimates within 10% of the Kaplan-Meier mean survival time.

Conclusions

Finite mixture models offer a flexible modeling approach that has benefits over standard parametric models when analyzing heterogenous data for estimating survival times needed for cost-effectiveness analysis.