Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30214315›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2018

Comparative performance of a modified landmark approach when no time of treatment data are available within oncological databases: exemplary cohort study among resected pancreatic cancer patients.

Janick Weberpals, Lina Jansen, Geert Silversmit, Julie Verbeeck, Lydia van der Geest, Pauline Aj Vissers, Vesna Zadnik, Hermann Brenner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Janick WeberpalsDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, h.brenner@dkfz.de.
Lina JansenDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, h.brenner@dkfz.de.
Geert SilversmitBelgian Cancer Registry (BCR), Brussels, Belgium.
Julie VerbeeckBelgian Cancer Registry (BCR), Brussels, Belgium.
Lydia van der GeestNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pauline Aj VissersNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Vesna ZadnikEpidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hermann BrennerDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, h.brenner@dkfz.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Mantel-Byar method is the gold standard analytical approach to avoid immortal time bias, but requires information on the time between start of follow-up and exposure initiation. Alternatively, a modified landmark approach might be used to mitigate the amount of immortal time bias, which assumes exposure initiation at a predefined landmark time. In the context of an expected positive association between adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and overall survival among resected pancreatic cancer (PCa) patients, this study aims to empirically assess the performance of this approach relative to the Mantel-Byar method. PATIENTS AND

methodsData from resected PCa patients diagnosed between 2003 and 2014 and registered in the national cancer registries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Slovenia were used to estimate the association between ACT and overall survival using a Cox proportional hazards model by country and overall. Results derived from the immortal time bias (misclassifying the time to ACT initiation), Mantel-Byar method, and conventional and modified landmark analyses with assumed cutoff times of ACT initiation at 9, 12 and 15 weeks post-diagnosis were compared.

resultsIn total, 5,668 patients with a total of 10,921 person-years of follow-up were eligible. All analytical approaches showed a significant survival benefit for resected PCa patients who received ACT, but immortal time bias analyses led to strong overestimation of ACT benefits compared to the Mantel-Byar method (immortal time bias: overall HR [95% CI] 0.68 [0.62-0.75] vs Mantel-Byar method: 0.82 [0.71-0.93]), whereas the conventional landmark approach generally provided rather conservative estimates (0.86 [0.75-1.00], 15 weeks landmark). HRs derived from modified landmark analyses depended on the cutoff time, but were similar compared to the Mantel-Byar method at 15 weeks (0.81 [0.70-0.94]).

conclusionA modified landmark approach might be a valid alternative to the Mantel-Byar method if no time of treatment information is available. The performance depends on the chosen cutoff time.

Indexed as

chemotherapyimmortal time biaslandmark analysispancreatic cancerpopulation-based

Identifiers

PMID30214315
PMCPMC6121745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.