...
首页> 外文期刊>Medical decision making: An international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making >A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement
【24h】

A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement

机译:癌症治疗良好技术评估中使用的存活分析方法综述:一致性,限制和改进领域

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives. In June 2011, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit published a Technical Support Document (TSD) providing recommendations on survival analysis for NICE technology appraisals (TAs). Survival analysis outputs are influential inputs into economic models estimating the cost-effectiveness of new cancer treatments. Hence, it is important that systematic and justifiable model selection approaches are used. This study investigates the extent to which the TSD recommendations have been followed since its publication. Methods. We reviewed NICE cancer TAs completed between July 2011 and July 2017. Information on survival analyses undertaken and associated critiques for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were extracted from the company submissions, Evidence Review Group (ERG) reports, and final appraisal determination documents. Results. Information was extracted from 58 TAs. Only 4 (7%) followed all TSD recommendations for OS outcomes. The vast majority (91%) compared a range of common parametric models and assessed their fit to the data (86%). Only a minority of TAs included an assessment of the shape of the hazard function (38%) or proportional hazards assumption (40%). Validation of the extrapolated portion of the survival function using external data was attempted in a minority of TAs (40%). Extrapolated survival functions were frequently criticized by ERGs (71%). Conclusions. Survival analysis within NICE TAs remains suboptimal, despite publication of the TSD. Model selection is not undertaken in a systematic way, resulting in inconsistencies between TAs. More attention needs to be given to assessing hazard functions and validation of extrapolated survival functions. Novel methods not described in the TSD have been used, particularly in the context of immuno-oncology, suggesting that an updated TSD may be of value.
机译:目标。 2011年6月,国家健康和护理学院卓越(尼斯)决策支持单位公布了一份技术支持文件(TSD),为良好的技术评估(TAS)提供有关生存分析的建议。生存分析产出是影响新癌症治疗成本效益的经济模式的影响力。因此,重要的是使用系统和合理的模型选择方法。本研究调查自发表以来遵循了TSD建议的程度。方法。我们审查了2011年7月至2017年7月至7月期间完成的良好癌症TAS。从公司提交,证据审查集团(ERG)报告和最终评估中提取有关整体存活(OS)和无进展生存期的生存分析和相关批评的信息。确定文件。结果。信息已从58 TA中提取。只有4(7%)遵循OS结果的所有TSD建议。绝大多数(91%)比较了一系列常见的参数模型,并评估其适合数据(86%)。只有少数TAS包括评估危险功能的形状(38%)或比例危害假设(40%)。尝试使用外部数据的少数TAS(40%)试图使用外部数据的外推部分的验证。 ERGS经常批评外推的存活功能(71%)。结论。尽管TSD出版,但尼斯TAS内的存活分析仍然是次优。模型选择未以系统的方式进行,导致TAS之间不一致。需要更多地注意评估外推生存功能的危害功能和验证。已经使用了TSD中未描述的新方法,特别是在免疫肿瘤学的背景下,表明更新的TSD可能是值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号