Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375680›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Evaluation of survival extrapolation in immuno-oncology using multiple pre-planned data cuts: learnings to aid in model selection.

Ash Bullement, Anna Willis, Amerah Amin, Michael Schlichting, Anthony James Hatswell, Murtuza Bharmal

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02155647 (A Phase II, Open-Label, Multicenter Trial to Investigate the Clinical Activity and Safety of Avelumab), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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.

NCT02155647 phase2completednot on this map

A Phase II, Open-Label, Multicenter Trial to Investigate the Clinical Activity and Safety of Avelumab (MSB0010718C) in Subjects With Merkel Cell Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorEMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc.Ran2014 to 2023Enrolled204ConditionsCarcinoma, Merkel CellArmsAvelumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ash BullementDelta Hat, Nottingham, UK.
Anna WillisBresMed, Sheffield, UK.
Amerah AminMerck Serono Ltd, Feltham, UK.
Michael SchlichtingMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Anthony James HatswellDelta Hat, Nottingham, UK.
Murtuza BharmalOncology Brands & Life Cycle Management, Global Evidence & Value Development, EMD Serono, Inc, One Technology Place, Rockland, MA, 02370, USA. Murtuza.bharmal@emdserono.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7689-5769
BresMed · GBMerck (Germany) · DEMerck Serono (Italy) · ITMerck (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to limited duration of follow up in clinical trials of cancer treatments, estimates of lifetime survival benefits are typically derived using statistical extrapolation methods. To justify the method used, a range of approaches have been proposed including statistical goodness-of-fit tests and comparing estimates against a previous data cut (i.e. interim data collected). In this study, we extend these approaches by presenting a range of extrapolations fitted to four pre-planned data cuts from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (JM200) trial. By comparing different estimates of survival and goodness-of-fit as JM200 data mature, we undertook an iterative process of fitting and re-fitting survival models to retrospectively identify early indications of likely long-term survival.

methodsStandard and spline-based parametric models were fitted to overall survival data from each JM200 data cut. Goodness-of-fit was determined using an assessment of the estimated hazard function, information theory-based methods and objective comparisons of estimation accuracy. Best-fitting extrapolations were compared to establish which one provided the most accurate estimation, and how statistical goodness-of-fit differed.

resultsSpline-based models provided the closest fit to the final JM200 data cut, though all extrapolation methods based on the earliest data cut underestimated the 'true' long-term survival (difference in restricted mean survival time [RMST] at 36 months: - 1.1 to - 0.5 months). Goodness-of-fit scores illustrated that an increasingly flexible model was favored as data matured. Given an early data cut, a more flexible model better aligned with clinical expectations could be reasonably justified using a range of metrics, including RMST and goodness-of-fit scores (which were typically within a 2-point range of the statistically 'best-fitting' model).

conclusionsSurvival estimates from the spline-based models are more aligned with clinical expectation and provided a better fit to the JM200 data, despite not exhibiting the definitively 'best' statistical goodness-of-fit. Longer-term data are required to further validate extrapolations, though this study illustrates the importance of clinical plausibility when selecting the most appropriate model. In addition, hazard-based plots and goodness-of-fit tests from multiple data cuts present useful approaches to identify when a more flexible model may be advantageous.

trial registrationJAVELIN Merkel 200 was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647 on June 4, 2014.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansModels, StatisticalRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisSurvival RateCancerExtrapolationImmune-oncologyImmunotherapySurvival

Identifiers

PMID32375680
PMCPMC7204248
OpenAlexW3023982169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.