4.4 Article

Individual patient data network meta-analysis using either restricted mean survival time difference or hazard ratios: is there a difference? A case study on locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinomas

Journal

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0984-x

Keywords

Hazard ratio; Survival analysis; Restricted mean survival time difference; Network meta-analysis; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Funding

  1. French Ministry of Health [VADS: PAIR-VADS 2011-191]
  2. Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer [PLRC2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study aimed at applying the restricted mean survival time difference (rmstD) as an absolute outcome measure in a network meta-analysis and comparing the results with those obtained using hazard ratios (HR) from the individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) on the role of chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) recently published by the MAC-NPC collaborative group (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy [CT] in NPC). Patients and methods: Twenty trials (5144 patients) comparing radiotherapy (RT) with or without CT in non-metastatic NPC were included. Treatments were grouped in seven categories: RT alone (RT), induction CT followed by RT (IC-RT), RT followed by adjuvant CT (RT-AC), IC followed by RT followed by AC (IC-RT-AC), concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), IC followed by CRT (IC-CRT), and CRT followed by AC (CRT-AC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and locoregional control. The rmstD was estimated at t* = 10 years in each trial. Random-effect frequentist NMA models were applied. P score was used to rank treatments. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were evaluated. Results: The three treatments that had the highest effect on OS with rmstD were CRT-AC, IC-CRT, and CRT (respective P scores of 92%, 72%, and 64%) compared to CRT-AC, CRT, and IC-CRT when using HR (respective P scores of 96%, 71%, and 63%). Of the 32 HR and rmstD analyzed, 5 had a different interpretation, 3 with a direction change (different direction of treatment effect) and 2 with a change in significance (same direction but a change in statistical significance). Results for secondary endpoints were overall in agreement. Conclusion: The use of either HR or rmstD impacts the results of NMA. Given the sensitivity of HR to non-proportional hazards, this finding could have implications in terms of meta-analysis methodology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available