Cargando…

The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of cancer treatments are prone to immortal time bias that, if unaddressed, can lead to treatments appearing more beneficial than they are. METHODS: To demonstrate the impact of immortal time bias, we compared results across several analytic approaches (dich...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duchesneau, Emilie D., Jackson, Bradford E., Webster-Clark, Michael, Lund, Jennifer L., Reeder-Hayes, Katherine E., Nápoles, Anna M., Strassle, Paula D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Association for Cancer Research 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35984990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0495
_version_ 1784822924533825536
author Duchesneau, Emilie D.
Jackson, Bradford E.
Webster-Clark, Michael
Lund, Jennifer L.
Reeder-Hayes, Katherine E.
Nápoles, Anna M.
Strassle, Paula D.
author_facet Duchesneau, Emilie D.
Jackson, Bradford E.
Webster-Clark, Michael
Lund, Jennifer L.
Reeder-Hayes, Katherine E.
Nápoles, Anna M.
Strassle, Paula D.
author_sort Duchesneau, Emilie D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of cancer treatments are prone to immortal time bias that, if unaddressed, can lead to treatments appearing more beneficial than they are. METHODS: To demonstrate the impact of immortal time bias, we compared results across several analytic approaches (dichotomous exposure, dichotomous exposure excluding immortal time, time-varying exposure, landmark analysis, clone-censor-weight method), using surgical resection among women with metastatic breast cancer as an example. All adult women diagnosed with incident metastatic breast cancer from 2013–2016 in the National Cancer Database were included. To quantify immortal time bias, we also conducted a simulation study where the “true” relationship between surgical resection and mortality was known. RESULTS: 24,329 women (median age 61, IQR 51–71) were included, and 24% underwent surgical resection. The largest association between resection and mortality was observed when using a dichotomized exposure [HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51–0.57], followed by dichotomous with exclusion of immortal time (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59–0.65). Results from the time-varying exposure, landmark, and clone-censor-weight method analyses were closer to the null (HR, 0.67–0.84). Results from the plasmode simulation found that the time-varying exposure, landmark, and clone-censor-weight method models all produced unbiased HRs (bias −0.003 to 0.016). Both standard dichotomous exposure (HR, 0.84; bias, −0.177) and dichotomous with exclusion of immortal time (HR, 0.93; bias, −0.074) produced meaningfully biased estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should use time-varying exposures with a treatment assessment window or the clone-censor-weight method when immortal time is present. IMPACT: Using methods that appropriately account for immortal time will improve evidence and decision-making from research using real-world data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9627261
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Association for Cancer Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96272612023-01-05 The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example Duchesneau, Emilie D. Jackson, Bradford E. Webster-Clark, Michael Lund, Jennifer L. Reeder-Hayes, Katherine E. Nápoles, Anna M. Strassle, Paula D. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Research Articles BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of cancer treatments are prone to immortal time bias that, if unaddressed, can lead to treatments appearing more beneficial than they are. METHODS: To demonstrate the impact of immortal time bias, we compared results across several analytic approaches (dichotomous exposure, dichotomous exposure excluding immortal time, time-varying exposure, landmark analysis, clone-censor-weight method), using surgical resection among women with metastatic breast cancer as an example. All adult women diagnosed with incident metastatic breast cancer from 2013–2016 in the National Cancer Database were included. To quantify immortal time bias, we also conducted a simulation study where the “true” relationship between surgical resection and mortality was known. RESULTS: 24,329 women (median age 61, IQR 51–71) were included, and 24% underwent surgical resection. The largest association between resection and mortality was observed when using a dichotomized exposure [HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51–0.57], followed by dichotomous with exclusion of immortal time (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59–0.65). Results from the time-varying exposure, landmark, and clone-censor-weight method analyses were closer to the null (HR, 0.67–0.84). Results from the plasmode simulation found that the time-varying exposure, landmark, and clone-censor-weight method models all produced unbiased HRs (bias −0.003 to 0.016). Both standard dichotomous exposure (HR, 0.84; bias, −0.177) and dichotomous with exclusion of immortal time (HR, 0.93; bias, −0.074) produced meaningfully biased estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should use time-varying exposures with a treatment assessment window or the clone-censor-weight method when immortal time is present. IMPACT: Using methods that appropriately account for immortal time will improve evidence and decision-making from research using real-world data. American Association for Cancer Research 2022-11-02 2022-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9627261/ /pubmed/35984990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0495 Text en ©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Duchesneau, Emilie D.
Jackson, Bradford E.
Webster-Clark, Michael
Lund, Jennifer L.
Reeder-Hayes, Katherine E.
Nápoles, Anna M.
Strassle, Paula D.
The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title_full The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title_fullStr The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title_full_unstemmed The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title_short The Timing, the Treatment, the Question: Comparison of Epidemiologic Approaches to Minimize Immortal Time Bias in Real-World Data Using a Surgical Oncology Example
title_sort timing, the treatment, the question: comparison of epidemiologic approaches to minimize immortal time bias in real-world data using a surgical oncology example
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35984990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0495
work_keys_str_mv AT duchesneauemilied thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT jacksonbradforde thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT websterclarkmichael thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT lundjenniferl thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT reederhayeskatherinee thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT napolesannam thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT strasslepaulad thetimingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT duchesneauemilied timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT jacksonbradforde timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT websterclarkmichael timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT lundjenniferl timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT reederhayeskatherinee timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT napolesannam timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample
AT strasslepaulad timingthetreatmentthequestioncomparisonofepidemiologicapproachestominimizeimmortaltimebiasinrealworlddatausingasurgicaloncologyexample