Estimating Treatment-Switching Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Combining Causal Inference with Decision-Analytic Modeling. (February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kuehne, Felicitas; Rochau, Ursula; Paracha, Noman; Yeh, Jennifer M.; Sabate, Eduardo; Siebert, Uwe
• Is Part Of: Medical decision making. Volume 42:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 194
• Page End: 207
• Publication Date: 2022-02
• Subjects: causal inference -- decision analysis -- health decision science -- markov model -- oncology -- survival analysis -- switching bias; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine clinique -- Prise de décision -- Périodiques; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211026288
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0272-989X

Abstract

Background: Bevacizumab is efficacious in delaying ovarian cancer progression and controlling ascites. The ICON7 trial showed a significant benefit in overall survival for bevacizumab, whereas the GOG-218 trial did not. GOG-218 allowed control group patients to switch to bevacizumab upon progression, which may have biased the results. Lack of data on switching behavior prevented the application of g-methods to adjust for switching. The objective of this study was to apply decision-analytic modeling to estimate the impact of switching bias on causal treatment-effect estimates. Methods: We developed a causal decision-analytic Markov model (CDAMM) to emulate the GOG-218 trial and estimate overall survival. CDAMM input parameters were based on data from randomized clinical trials and the published literature. Overall switching proportion was based on GOG-218 trial information, whereas the proportion switching with and without ascites was estimated using calibration. We estimated the counterfactual treatment effect that would have been observed had no switching occurred by denying switching in the CDAMM. Results: The survival curves generated by the CDAMM matched well with the ones reported in the GOG-218 trial. The survival curve correcting for switching showed an estimated bias such that 79% of the true treatment effect could not be observed in the GOG-218 trial. Results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion progressing with severe ascites and mortality. Limitations: We used a simplified model structure and based model parameters on published data and assumptions. Robustness of the CDAMM was tested and model assumptions transparently reported. Conclusions: Medical-decision science methods may be merged with empirical methods of causal inference to integrate data from other sources where empirical data are not sufficient. We recommend collecting sufficient information on switching behavior when switching cannot be avoided.