Using recurrent time-to-event models with multinomial outcomes to generate toxicity profiles.
adverse events
multinomial logistic regression
multinomial outcomes
piecewise logistic regression
recurrent time-to-events
toxicity profiles
Journal
Pharmaceutical statistics
ISSN: 1539-1612
Titre abrégé: Pharm Stat
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101201192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
revised:
20
01
2021
received:
21
07
2020
accepted:
02
03
2021
pubmed:
19
3
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
18
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most clinical studies, which investigate the impact of therapy simultaneously, record the frequency of adverse events in order to monitor safety of the intervention. Study reports typically summarise adverse event data by tabulating the frequencies of the worst grade experienced but provide no details of the temporal profiles of specific types of adverse events. Such 'toxicity profiles' are potentially important tools in disease management and in the assessment of newer therapies including targeted treatments and immunotherapy where different types of toxicity may be more common at various times during long-term drug exposure. Toxicity profiles of commonly experienced adverse events occurring due to exposure to long-term treatment could assist in evaluating the costs of the health care benefits of therapy. We show how to generate toxicity profiles using an adaptation of the ordinal time-to-event model comprising of a two-step process, involving estimation of the multinomial response probabilities using multinomial logistic regression and combining these with recurrent time to event hazard estimates to produce cumulative event probabilities for each of the multinomial adverse event response categories. Such a model permits the simultaneous assessment of the risk of events over time and provides cumulative risk probabilities for each type of adverse event response. The method can be applied more generally by using different models to estimate outcome/response probabilities. The method is illustrated by developing toxicity profiles for three distinct types of adverse events associated with two treatment regimens for patients with advanced breast cancer.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
840-849Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Lee C, Gebski V, Coates A, et al. Trade-offs in quality of life and survival with chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: mature results of a randomized trial comparing single-agent mitoxantrone with combination cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil and prednisone. Springerplus. 2013;2:391.
McNeil B, Pauker S, Sox H, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259-1562.
Simes J. A C. patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;30:146-152.
Cabarrou B, Boher J, Bogart E, et al. How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies? Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1633-1638.
Carbini M, Suárez-Fariñas M, Maki RA. Method to summarize toxicity in cancer randomized clinical trials. Cancer Clin Res. 2018;24:4968-4975.
Ding P, Lord S, Val Gebski V, et al. Risk of treatment-related toxicities from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a meta-analysis of clinical trials of Gefitinib, Erlotinib, and Afatinib in advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:633-643.
Allignol A, Beyersmann J. C S. statistical issues in the analysis of adverse events in time-to-event data. Pharmaceut Stat. 2016;15:297-305.
Gresham G, Diniz M, Razaee Z, et al. Evaluating treatment tolerability in cancer clinical trials using the toxicity index. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:1266-1274. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa028.
Marino P, Sfumato P, Joly F, et al. Q-TWiST analysis of patients with metastatic castrate naive prostate cancer treated by androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel in the randomised phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:27-33.
Thanarajasingam G, Hubbard J, Sloan J. A G. longitudinal adverse event assessment in oncology clinical trials: the toxicity over time (ToxT) analysis of Alliance trials NCCTG N9741 and 979254. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:663-670.
White H, Simes R, Anderson N, et al. Pravastatin therapy and the risk of stroke. New Engl J Med. 2000;343:317-326.
Teixeira L, Rodrigues A, Carvalho M, Cabrita A, Mendonça D. Modelling competing risks in nephrology research: an example in peritoneal dialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:110.
Xie D, Yang W, Jepson C, et al. Statistical methods for modeling time-updated exposures in cohort studies of chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12:1892-1899.
Hickey G, Philipson P, Jorgensen A, Kolamunnage-Dona R. Joint models of longitudinal and time-to-event data with more than one event time outcome: AReview. Int J Biostat. 2018;4(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2017-0047.
Hengelbrock J, Gillhaus J, Kloss S, Leverkus F. Safety data from randomized controlled trials: applying models for recurrent events. Pharm Stat. 2016;15:315-323.
Gebski V, Byth K, Asher R, Marschner I. Recurrent time-to-event models with ordinal outcomes. Pharm Stat. 2021;20:77-92.
Lee S, Khan I, Upadhyay S, et al. First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1161-1170.
Begg C, Gray R. Calculation of Polychotomous logistic regression parameters using individualized regressions. Biometrika. 1984;71:11-18.
Biesheuvela C, Vergouwea Y, Steyerbergc E, Grobbeea D, Moonsa K. Polytomous logistic regression analysis could be applied more often in diagnostic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:125-134.
Rom M, Cohen A. Estimation in the polytomous logistic regression model. J Stat Plann Inference. 1995;43:341-353.
Meira-Machado L, de Uña-Álvarez J, Cadarso-Suárez C, Andersen P. Multi-state models for the analysis of time-to-event data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18:195-222.
Wolkewitz M, von Cube M, Schumacher M. Multistate modeling to analyze nosocomial infection data: an introduction and demonstration. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38:953-959.
Fox J. Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2016.
Wei LJ, Lin DY, Weissfeld L. Regression-analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84:1065-1073.
Prentice R, Williams B, Peterson A. On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika. 1984;68:373-379.
ACCoRD (Analysis of Censored and Correlated Data) V8.6. Eastwood NSW 2012 Australia: Boffin Software; 2020.
Ozga A, Kieser M, Rauch G. A systematic comparison of recurrent event models for application to composite endpoint. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:2.
ACCoRD (Analysis of Censored and Correlated Data). Eastwood NSW 2012 Australia: Boffin Software; 2018.
Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.