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

Author:

Duchesneau Emilie D.1ORCID,Jackson Bradford E.2ORCID,Webster-Clark Michael1ORCID,Lund Jennifer L.12ORCID,Reeder-Hayes Katherine E.23ORCID,Nápoles Anna M.4ORCID,Strassle Paula D.4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. 1Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

2. 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

3. 3Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

4. 4Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Funder

National Institute of Nursing Research

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Publisher

American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)

Subject

Oncology,Epidemiology

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3