Modelling survival data to account for model uncertainty: a single model or model averaging?

This study considered the problem of predicting survival, based on three alternative models: a single Weibull, a mixture of Weibulls and a cure model. Instead of the common procedure of choosing a single “best” model, where “best” is defined in terms of goodness of fit to the data, a Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach was adopted to account for model uncertainty. This was illustrated using a case study in which the aim was the description of lymphoma cancer survival with covariates given by phenotypes and gene expression. The results of this study indicate that if the sample size is sufficiently large, one of the three models emerge as having highest probability given the data, as indicated by the goodness of fit measure; the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). However, when the sample size was reduced, no single model was revealed as “best”, suggesting that a BMA approach would be appropriate. Although a BMA approach can compromise on goodness of fit to the data (when compared to the true model), it can provide robust predictions and facilitate more detailed investigation of the relationships between gene expression and patient survival. Keywords: Bayesian modelling; Bayesian model averaging; Cure model; Markov Chain Monte Carlo; Mixture model; Survival analysis; Weibull distribution

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Survival analysis of time-to-event data in respiratory health research studies

This article provides a review of techniques for the analysis of survival data arising from respiratory health studies. Popular techniques such as the Kaplan–Meier survival plot and the Cox proportional hazards model are presented and illustrated using data from a lung cancer study. Advanced issues are also discussed, including parametric proportional hazards models, accelerated failure time models, time-varying explanatory variables, simultaneous analysis of multiple types of outcome events and the restricted mean survival time, a novel measure of the effect of treatment.

Population-based survival estimates for childhood cancer in Australia during the period 1997–2006

Background: This study provides the latest available relative survival data for Australian childhood cancer patients. Methods: Data from the population-based Australian Paediatric Cancer Registry were used to describe relative survival outcomes using the period method for 11 903 children diagnosed with cancer between 1983 and 2006 and prevalent at any time between 1997 and 2006. Results: The overall relative survival was 90.4% after 1 year, 79.5% after 5 years and 74.7% after 20 years. Where information onstage at diagnosis was available (lymphomas, neuroblastoma, renal tumours and rhabdomyosarcomas), survival was significantly poorer for more-advanced stage. Survival was lower among infants compared with other children for those diagnosed with leukaemia, tumours of the central nervous system and renal tumours but higher for neuroblastoma. Recent improvements in overall childhood cancer survival over time are mainly because of improvements among leukaemia patients. Conclusion: The high and improving survival prognosis for children diagnosed with cancer in Australia is consistent with various international estimates. However, a 5-year survival estimate of 79% still means that many children who are diagnosed with cancer will die within 5 years, whereas others have long-term health morbidities and complications associated with their treatments. It is hoped that continued developments in treatment protocols will result in further improvements in survival.

Bayesian survival analysis using gene expression

This thesis developed and applied Bayesian models for the analysis of survival data. The gene expression was considered as explanatory variables within the Bayesian survival model which can be considered the new contribution in the analysis of such data. The censoring factor that is inherent of survival data has also been addressed in terms of its impact on the fitting of a finite mixture of Weibull distribution with and without covariates. To investigate this, simulation study were carried out under several censoring percentages. Censoring percentage as high as 80% is acceptable here as the work involved high dimensional data. Lastly the Bayesian model averaging approach was developed to incorporate model uncertainty in the prediction of survival.

Response to chemotherapy is predictive in relation to longer overall survival in an individual patient combined-analysis with pleural mesothelioma

Background: There is currently no early predictive marker of survival for patients receiving chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Tumour response may be predictive for overall survival (OS), though this has not been explored. We have thus undertaken a combined-analysis of OS, from a 42 day landmark, of 526 patients receiving systemic therapy for MPM. We also validate published progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) and a progression-free survival (PFS) prognostic-index model. Methods: Analyses included nine MPM clinical trials incorporating six European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) studies. Analysis of OS from landmark (from day 42 post-treatment) was considered regarding tumour response. PFSR analysis data included six non-EORTC MPM clinical trials. Prognostic index validation was performed on one non-EORTC data-set, with available survival data. Results: Median OS, from landmark, of patients with partial response (PR) was 12·8 months, stable disease (SD), 9·4 months and progressive disease (PD), 3·4 months. Both PR and SD were associated with longer OS from landmark compared with disease progression (both p < 0·0001). PFSRs for platinum-based combination therapies were consistent with published significant clinical activity ranges. Effective separation between PFS and OS curves provided a validation of the EORTC prognostic model, based on histology, stage and performance status. Conclusion: Response to chemotherapy is associated with significantly longer OS from landmark in patients with MPM. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comparing multilevel and Bayesian spatial random effects survival models to assess geographical inequalities in colorectal cancer survival: a case study

Background Multilevel and spatial models are being increasingly used to obtain substantive information on area-level inequalities in cancer survival. Multilevel models assume independent geographical areas, whereas spatial models explicitly incorporate geographical correlation, often via a conditional autoregressive prior. However the relative merits of these methods for large population-based studies have not been explored. Using a case-study approach, we report on the implications of using multilevel and spatial survival models to study geographical inequalities in all-cause survival. Methods Multilevel discrete-time and Bayesian spatial survival models were used to study geographical inequalities in all-cause survival for a population-based colorectal cancer cohort of 22,727 cases aged 20–84 years diagnosed during 1997–2007 from Queensland, Australia. Results Both approaches were viable on this large dataset, and produced similar estimates of the fixed effects. After adding area-level covariates, the between-area variability in survival using multilevel discrete-time models was no longer significant. Spatial inequalities in survival were also markedly reduced after adjusting for aggregated area-level covariates. Only the multilevel approach however, provided an estimation of the contribution of geographical variation to the total variation in survival between individual patients. Conclusions With little difference observed between the two approaches in the estimation of fixed effects, multilevel models should be favored if there is a clear hierarchical data structure and measuring the independent impact of individual- and area-level effects on survival differences is of primary interest. Bayesian spatial analyses may be preferred if spatial correlation between areas is important and if the priority is to assess small-area variations in survival and map spatial patterns. Both approaches can be readily fitted to geographically enabled survival data from international settings

Rank regression for accelerated failure time model with clustered and censored data

For clustered survival data, the traditional Gehan-type estimator is asymptotically equivalent to using only the between-cluster ranks, and the within-cluster ranks are ignored. The contribution of this paper is two fold: - (i) incorporating within-cluster ranks in censored data analysis, and; - (ii) applying the induced smoothing of Brown and Wang (2005, Biometrika) for computational convenience. Asymptotic properties of the resulting estimating functions are given. We also carry out numerical studies to assess the performance of the proposed approach and conclude that the proposed approach can lead to much improved estimators when strong clustering effects exist. A dataset from a litter-matched tumorigenesis experiment is used for illustration.

Induced smoothing for rank regression with censored survival times

Adaptions of weighted rank regression to the accelerated failure time model for censored survival data have been successful in yielding asymptotically normal estimates and flexible weighting schemes to increase statistical efficiencies. However, for only one simple weighting scheme, Gehan or Wilcoxon weights, are estimating equations guaranteed to be monotone in parameter components, and even in this case are step functions, requiring the equivalent of linear programming for computation. The lack of smoothness makes standard error or covariance matrix estimation even more difficult. An induced smoothing technique overcame these difficulties in various problems involving monotone but pure jump estimating equations, including conventional rank regression. The present paper applies induced smoothing to the Gehan-Wilcoxon weighted rank regression for the accelerated failure time model, for the more difficult case of survival time data subject to censoring, where the inapplicability of permutation arguments necessitates a new method of estimating null variance of estimating functions. Smooth monotone parameter estimation and rapid, reliable standard error or covariance matrix estimation is obtained.

Prognostic factors for malignant mesothelioma in 142 patients : validation of CALGB and EORTC prognostic scoring systems

Background The incidence of malignant mesothelioma is increasing. There is the perception that survival is worse in the UK than in other countries. However, it is important to compare survival in different series based on accurate prognostic data. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the Cancer and Leukaemia Group B (CALGB) have recently published prognostic scoring systems. We have assessed the prognostic variables, validated the EORTC and CALGB prognostic groups, and evaluated survival in a series of 142 patients. Methods Case notes of 142 consecutive patients presenting in Leicester since 1988 were reviewed. Univariate analysis of prognostic variables was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Statistically significant variables were analysed further in a forward, stepwise multivariate model. EORTC and CALGB prognostic groups were derived, Kaplan-Meier survival curves plotted, and survival rates were calculated from life tables. Results Significant poor prognostic factors in univariate analysis included male sex, older age, weight loss, chest pain, poor performance status, low haemoglobin, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, and non-epithelial cell type (p<0.05). The prognostic significance of cell type, haemoglobin, white cell count, performance status, and sex were retained in the multivariate model. Overall median survival was 5.9 (range 0-34.3) months. One and two year survival rates were 21.3% (95% CI 13.9 to 28.7) and 3.5% (0 to 8.5), respectively. Median, one, and two year survival data within prognostic groups in Leicester were equivalent to the EORTC and CALGB series. Survival curves were successfully stratified by the prognostic groups. Conclusions This study validates the EORTC and CALGB prognostic scoring systems which should be used both in the assessment of survival data of series in different countries and in the stratification of patients into randomised clinical studies.

A role for IGF-1R-targeted therapies in small-cell lung cancer?

Background: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. The insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) is an autocrine growth factor and an attractive therapeutic target in many solid tumors, but particularly in lung cancer. Patients and Methods: This study examined tumor samples from 23 patients diagnosed with SCLC, 11 resected specimens and 12 nodal biopsies obtained by mediastinoscopy, for expression of IGF-1R using the monoclonal rabbit anti-IGF-1R (clone G11, Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ) and standard immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: All 23 tumor samples expressed IGF-1R with a range of stain intensity from weak (1+) to strong (3+). Ten tumors had a score of 3+, 7 tumors 2+, and 6 tumors 1+. Patient survival data were available for all 23 patients. Two patients died < 30 days post biopsy, therefore, the intensity of anti-IGF-1R immunostaining for 21 patients was correlated to survival. Patients with 3+ immunostaining had a poorer prognosis (P = .003). The overall survival of patients who underwent surgical resection was significantly better (median survival not reached) than patients who were not resected (median survival, 7.4 months) (P = .006). Conclusion: IGF-1R targeted therapies may have a role in the treatment of SCLC in combination with chemotherapy or as maintenance therapy. Further studies on the clinical benefit of targeting IGF-1R in SCLC are needed.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Methods and preliminary results for a data linkage project to determine long-term survival after intensive care unit admission

Aims: To describe a local data linkage project to match hospital data with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) National Death Index (NDI) to assess longterm outcomes of intensive care unit patients. Methods: Data were obtained from hospital intensive care and cardiac surgery databases on all patients aged 18 years and over admitted to either of two intensive care units at a tertiary-referral hospital between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 2005. Date of death was obtained from the AIHW NDI by probabilistic software matching, in addition to manual checking through hospital databases and other sources. Survival was calculated from time of ICU admission, with a censoring date of 14 February 2007. Data for patients with multiple hospital admissions requiring intensive care were analysed only from the first admission. Summary and descriptive statistics were used for preliminary data analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyse factors determining long-term survival. Results: During the study period, 21 415 unique patients had 22 552 hospital admissions that included an ICU admission; 19 058 surgical procedures were performed with a total of 20 092 ICU admissions. There were 4936 deaths. Median follow-up was 6.2 years, totalling 134 203 patient years. The casemix was predominantly cardiac surgery (80%), followed by cardiac medical (6%), and other medical (4%). The unadjusted survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 97%, 84% and 70%, respectively. The 1-year survival ranged from 97% for cardiac surgery to 36% for cardiac arrest. An APACHE II score was available for 16 877 patients. In those discharged alive from hospital, the 1, 5 and 10-year survival varied with discharge location. Conclusions: ICU-based linkage projects are feasible to determine long-term outcomes of ICU patients