ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
A Bayesian Approach to Compare Accumulating Survival Data From Clinical Practice With RCT Data: A Case Study in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Survival outcomes observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not always be generalizable to clinical practice. Evaluating whether treatment outcomes in clinical practice are similar to those in RCTs shortly after a new medicine is introduced is important for making informed decisions. Therefore, we aimed to develop a Bayesian model that compares survival data from clinical practice that accumulates over time with static survival data from RCTs, thereby providing rapid and easily interpretable results that can inform clinical and policy-related decision-making. We developed a Bayesian survival model that sequentially updates estimates as new data become available. We designed the model to incorporate static RCT data with accumulating clinical practice data. We used sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors to assess the strength of the evidence for different hazard ratio (HR) thresholds (i.e., ranging from HR > 1.0 to > 2.0 and HR < 0.5 to < 1.0). We applied the model to two datasets comprising survival data from clinical practice and an RCT for lung cancer patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (dataset 1) and pembrolizumab monotherapy (dataset 2). For dataset 1, the posterior model checks showed a misfit between the model and the data after 15 months, potentially due to channeling bias. The model fit should be improved before reliable estimates can be obtained. For dataset 2, the model estimated precise HRs 10 months before the end of data accumulation. Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors provided easily interpretable results, with very strong evidence for an HR > 1.0 and strong evidence for an HR > 1.2. In conclusion, provided the posterior check shows an acceptable model fit, our Bayesian survival model with sequential hypothesis testing using Bayes factors can provide rapid and easily interpretable results for decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.