SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Shannon Cope

Publications and source records attributed to Shannon Cope.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Augmented two-stage estimation for treatment crossover in oncology trials: Leveraging external data for improved precision

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology often allow control group participants to crossover to experimental treatments, a practice that, while often ethically necessary, complicates the accurate estimation of long-term treatment effects. When crossover rates are high or sample sizes are limited, commonly used methods for crossover adjustment (such as the rank-preserving structural failure time model, inverse probability of censoring weights, and two-stage estimation (TSE)) may produce imprecise estimates. Real-world data (RWD) can be used to develop an external control arm for the RCT, although this approach ignores evidence from trial subjects who did not crossover and ignores evidence from the data obtained prior to crossover for those subjects who did. This paper introduces ''augmented two-stage estimation'' (ATSE), a method that combines data from non-switching participants in a RCT with an external dataset, forming a ''hybrid non-switching arm''. With a simulation study, we evaluate the ATSE method's performance compared to TSE crossover adjustment and an external control arm approach. Results indicate that performance is dependent on scenario characteristics, but when unconfounded external data are available, ATSE may result in less bias and improved precision compared to TSE and external control arm approaches. When external data are affected by unmeasured confounding, ATSE becomes prone to bias, but to a lesser extent compared to an external control arm approach.

stat.ME

Estimating marginal treatment effects from observational studies and indirect treatment comparisons: When are standardization-based methods preferable to those based on propensity score weighting?

In light of newly developed standardization methods, we evaluate, via simulation study, how propensity score weighting and standardization -based approaches compare for obtaining estimates of the marginal odds ratio and the marginal hazard ratio. Specifically, we consider how the two approaches compare in two different scenarios: (1) in a single observational study, and (2) in an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of randomized controlled trials. We present the material in such a way so that the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and the (novel) simulated treatment comparison (STC) methods in the ITC setting may be viewed as analogous to the propensity score weighting and standardization methods in the single observational study setting. Our results suggest that current recommendations for conducting ITCs can be improved and underscore the importance of adjusting for purely prognostic factors.

stat.ME