A Note on Estimating Treatment Effect for Time-to-event Data in a Literature-based Meta-analysis

Summary

Objectives: In a literature-based meta-analysis for time-to-event data, the hazard ratio in each trial is often estimated from the summary statistics described in the article. Several methods have been proposed: the direct method (Peto method); the indirect method using a p-value by the log-rank test and the number of total events; and the survival curve method using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. However, there has been no published report on a detailed investigation of these methods. We evaluated the performance of these methods by simulation.

Methods: In a set of simulation experiments, performance of five methods was evaluated by the bias of estimated log hazard ratio and coverage probability of the confidence interval. The methods evaluated were: 1) Cox regression analysis, 2) direct method, 3) indirect method, 4) survival curve method, and 5) modified survival curve method with an alternative weighting scheme.

Results: The direct method was confirmed to have a high degree of accuracy. Although the indirect method was also highly accurate, it tended to underestimate effect size when there was a strong effect. The survival curve method tended to underestimate effect size when event numbers were small and effect size was large. The modified survival curve method could alleviate this tendency toward underestimation of effect size found with the original survival curve method.

Conclusions: When the Kaplan-Meier curve is used to estimate hazard ratios in trials with small sample size in the literature-based meta-analysis, we should check critically whether those trials’ hazard ratios and overall hazard ratio are underestimated or not.

Keywords

Hazard ratio - meta-analysis - survival analysis - time-to-event

• References

• 1 Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. Meta-analysis: the fashion of summing-up evidence. Part I. Rationale and conduct. Ann Oncol 1991; 2: 461-468.
• 2 Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1985; 27: 335-371.
• 3 Piedbois P, Buyse M. Meta-analyses based on abstracted data: a step in the right direction, but only a first step. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 3839-3841.
• 4 Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25: 76-97.
• 5 Lyman GH, Kuderer NM. The strength and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 14.
• 6 Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2815-2834.
• 7 Williamson PR, Smith CT, Hutton JL, Marson AG. Aggregate data meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2815-2834.
• 8 Tudur C, Williamson PR, Khan SA, Best L. The value of the aggregate data approach in meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2001; 164: 357-370.
• 9 Altman DG, De Stavola BL, Love SB, Stepniewska KA. Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 1995; 72: 511-518.
• 10 Mari E, Floriani I, Tinazzi A, Buda A, Belfiglio M, Valentini M. et al. Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection for gastric cancer: a study of the GISCAD. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 837-843.
• 11 Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Mascaux C, Martin B, Meert AP, Haller A. et al. Thyroid transcription factor 1-a new prognostic factor in lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 1673-1676.
• 12 Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR. A comparison of methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individual patient data with time to event outcomes. Clin Trials 2007; 4: 621-630.
• 13 Katsahian S, Latouche A, Mary JY, Chevret S, Porcher R. Practical methodology of meta-analysis of individual patient data using a survival outcome. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008; 29: 220-230.
• 14 Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007; 8: 16.
• 15 Sathya JR, Davis IR, Julian JA, Guo Q, Daya D, Dayes IS. et al. Randomized trial comparing iridium implant plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1192-1199.
• 16 Lee AW, Lau WH, Tung SY, Chua DT, Chappell R, Xu L. et al. Preliminary results of a randomized study on therapeutic gain by concurrent chemo-therapy for regionally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6966-6975.
• 17 Poplin EA, Benedetti JK, Estes NC, Haller DG, Mayer RJ, Goldberg RM. et al. Phase III Southwest Oncology Group 9415/Intergroup 0153 randomized trial of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole versus fluorouracil continuous infusion and levamisole for adjuvant treatment of stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1819-1825.
• 18 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001 285 1987-1991.
• 19 Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B 1972; 34: 187-220.
• 20 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of the data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer I 1959; 22: 719-748.
• 21 Greenland S, Robins JM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Bio-metrics 1985; 41: 55-68.