Cargando…

Informed Bayesian survival analysis

BACKGROUND: We provide an overview of Bayesian estimation, hypothesis testing, and model-averaging and illustrate how they benefit parametric survival analysis. We contrast the Bayesian framework to the currently dominant frequentist approach and highlight advantages, such as seamless incorporation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bartoš, František, Aust, Frederik, Haaf, Julia M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36088281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01676-9
_version_ 1784787575350755328
author Bartoš, František
Aust, Frederik
Haaf, Julia M.
author_facet Bartoš, František
Aust, Frederik
Haaf, Julia M.
author_sort Bartoš, František
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We provide an overview of Bayesian estimation, hypothesis testing, and model-averaging and illustrate how they benefit parametric survival analysis. We contrast the Bayesian framework to the currently dominant frequentist approach and highlight advantages, such as seamless incorporation of historical data, continuous monitoring of evidence, and incorporating uncertainty about the true data generating process. METHODS: We illustrate the application of the outlined Bayesian approaches on an example data set, retrospective re-analyzing a colon cancer trial. We assess the performance of Bayesian parametric survival analysis and maximum likelihood survival models with AIC/BIC model selection in fixed-n and sequential designs with a simulation study. RESULTS: In the retrospective re-analysis of the example data set, the Bayesian framework provided evidence for the absence of a positive treatment effect of adding Cetuximab to FOLFOX6 regimen on disease-free survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Furthermore, the Bayesian sequential analysis would have terminated the trial 10.3 months earlier than the standard frequentist analysis. In a simulation study with sequential designs, the Bayesian framework on average reached a decision in almost half the time required by the frequentist counterparts, while maintaining the same power, and an appropriate false-positive rate. Under model misspecification, the Bayesian framework resulted in higher false-negative rate compared to the frequentist counterparts, which resulted in a higher proportion of undecided trials. In fixed-n designs, the Bayesian framework showed slightly higher power, slightly elevated error rates, and lower bias and RMSE when estimating treatment effects in small samples. We found no noticeable differences for survival predictions. We have made the analytic approach readily available to other researchers in the RoBSA R package. CONCLUSIONS: The outlined Bayesian framework provides several benefits when applied to parametric survival analyses. It uses data more efficiently, is capable of considerably shortening the length of clinical trials, and provides a richer set of inferences. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01676-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9464410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94644102022-09-12 Informed Bayesian survival analysis Bartoš, František Aust, Frederik Haaf, Julia M. BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: We provide an overview of Bayesian estimation, hypothesis testing, and model-averaging and illustrate how they benefit parametric survival analysis. We contrast the Bayesian framework to the currently dominant frequentist approach and highlight advantages, such as seamless incorporation of historical data, continuous monitoring of evidence, and incorporating uncertainty about the true data generating process. METHODS: We illustrate the application of the outlined Bayesian approaches on an example data set, retrospective re-analyzing a colon cancer trial. We assess the performance of Bayesian parametric survival analysis and maximum likelihood survival models with AIC/BIC model selection in fixed-n and sequential designs with a simulation study. RESULTS: In the retrospective re-analysis of the example data set, the Bayesian framework provided evidence for the absence of a positive treatment effect of adding Cetuximab to FOLFOX6 regimen on disease-free survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Furthermore, the Bayesian sequential analysis would have terminated the trial 10.3 months earlier than the standard frequentist analysis. In a simulation study with sequential designs, the Bayesian framework on average reached a decision in almost half the time required by the frequentist counterparts, while maintaining the same power, and an appropriate false-positive rate. Under model misspecification, the Bayesian framework resulted in higher false-negative rate compared to the frequentist counterparts, which resulted in a higher proportion of undecided trials. In fixed-n designs, the Bayesian framework showed slightly higher power, slightly elevated error rates, and lower bias and RMSE when estimating treatment effects in small samples. We found no noticeable differences for survival predictions. We have made the analytic approach readily available to other researchers in the RoBSA R package. CONCLUSIONS: The outlined Bayesian framework provides several benefits when applied to parametric survival analyses. It uses data more efficiently, is capable of considerably shortening the length of clinical trials, and provides a richer set of inferences. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01676-9. BioMed Central 2022-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9464410/ /pubmed/36088281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01676-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Bartoš, František
Aust, Frederik
Haaf, Julia M.
Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title_full Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title_fullStr Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title_full_unstemmed Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title_short Informed Bayesian survival analysis
title_sort informed bayesian survival analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36088281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01676-9
work_keys_str_mv AT bartosfrantisek informedbayesiansurvivalanalysis
AT austfrederik informedbayesiansurvivalanalysis
AT haafjuliam informedbayesiansurvivalanalysis