Projecting overall survival in health-economic models: uncertainty and maturity of data

References

• CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologies-canada-4thedition
   Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation - HAS. Methodological Guidance; 2020. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/r_1499251/en/choices-in-methods-for-economic-evaluation
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. In: Process and methods. NICE; 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll JJ, Rixe O. Overall survival: still the gold standard: why overall survival remains the definitive end point in cancer clinical trials. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):401–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MK, Karakasis K, Oza AM. Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):e32–e42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaeli DT, Michaeli T. Overall survival, Progression-Free survival, and tumor response benefit supporting initial US food and drug administration approval and indication extension of new cancer drugs, 2003–2021. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(35):4095–4106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth CM, Del Paggio JC. Approvals in 2016: questioning the clinical benefit of anticancer therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(3):135–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data. NICE decision support unit technical support documents. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE DSU Technical Support Document No. 14; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Latimer, N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Undertaking survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials - extrapolation with patient-level data. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Gebski V, Garès V, Gibbs E, et al. Data maturity and follow-up in time-to-event analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(3):850–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, et al. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaby V, Adunlin G, Montero AJ. Survival modeling for the estimation of transition probabilities in model-based economic evaluations in the absence of individual patient data: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(2):101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods BS, Sideris E, Palmer SJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 19. Partitioned survival analysis for decision modelling in health care: a critical review; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Royston P, Parmar MK. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alderson D, Cunningham D, Nankivell M, et al. Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1249–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(9):1248–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, CheckMate 026 Investigators, et al. First-Line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(25):2415–2426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Ascierto PA, et al. Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):435–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujitani K, Yang HK, Mizusawa J, REGATTA study investigators, et al. Gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer with a single non-curable factor (REGATTA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(3):309–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):699–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, CORRECT Study Group, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9863):303–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbeck N, Huang CS, Hurvitz S, LUX-Breast 1 study group, et al. Afatinib plus vinorelbine versus trastuzumab plus vinorelbine in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on one previous trastuzumab treatment (LUX-Breast 1): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(3):357–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantarjian HM, DeAngelo DJ, Stelljes M, et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):740–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, CheckMate 025 Investigators, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(19):1803–1813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D, ALSYMPCA Investigators, et al. Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(3):213–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddon B, Strauss SJ, Whelan J, et al. Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1397–1410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stintzing S, Modest DP, Rossius L, FIRE-3 investigators, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(10):1426–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ, et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):734–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zalcman G, Mazieres J, Margery J, French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT), et al. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the mesothelioma avastin cisplatin pemetrexed study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10026):1405–1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullement A, Meng Y, Cooper M, et al. A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the national institute for health and care excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available? J Med Econ. 2019;22(3):205–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-Cell therapy in refractory large B-Cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(26):2531–2544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, JULIET Investigators, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(1):45–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Avis d’efficience: KYMRIAH (Tisagenlecleucel)Lymphome diffus à grandes cellules B; 2019. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-03/kymriah_ldgcb_15012019_avis_efficience.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Avis d’efficience: YESCARTA (axicabtagene ciloleucel)Lymphomes diffus à grandes cellules B (LDGCB) et lymphome médiastinalprimitif à grandes cellules B (LMPGCB) réfractaire ou en rechute, après au moins deux lignes de traitement systémique; 2019. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/plugins/ModuleXitiKLEE/types/FileDocument/doXiti.jsp?id=c_2961897.
   Google Scholar
• Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS. Overall survival as the outcome for randomized clinical trials with effective subsequent therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2439–2442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad ED, Katz A, Buyse M. Overall survival and post-progression survival in advanced breast cancer: a review of recent randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1958–1962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Nivolumab for adjuvant treatment of completely resected melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease. Technology appraisal guidance [TA684]. 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta684
   Google Scholar
• Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, et al. Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. J R Stat Soc Series C. 2001;50(4):405–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J Royal Statistical Soc A. 2004;167(1):103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate end points–the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(6):309–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suciu S, Eggermont AMM, Lorigan P, et al. Relapse-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in the evaluation of stage II-III melanoma adjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(1). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djx133
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guy H, Walder L, Fisher M. Cost-Effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance, olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with ovarian cancer in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(3):391–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Final appraisal determination: Niraparib formaintenance treatment ofrelapsed, platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer; 2018. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta528/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document.
   Google Scholar
• Hettle R, Posnett J, Borrill J. Challenges in economic modeling of anticancer therapies: an example of modeling the survival benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. J Med Econ. 2015;18(7):516–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagust A, Beale SJ. Exploring the effects of early censoring and analysis of clinical trial survival data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimation through a case study in advanced breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(7):789–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham CN, Christodoulopoulou A, Knox HN, et al. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US. J Med Econ. 2018;21(11):1075–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar