AI Article Synopsis

  • The study revisits the analysis methods for long-term mortality outcomes in a cancer screening trial, due to advancements in statistical methods and new evidence regarding delayed effects.
  • In consultation with experts, three analysis options were considered, with most advocating for a new method that accounts for delayed mortality effects.
  • The final decision was to use the Versatile test for better accuracy, highlighting the need for improved consensus on mortality outcome reporting in cancer trials.

Article Abstract

Background: During trials that span decades, new evidence including progress in statistical methodology, may require revision of original assumptions. An example is the continued use of a constant-effect approach to analyse the mortality reduction which is often delayed in cancer-screening trials. The latter led us to re-examine our approach for the upcoming primary mortality analysis (2020) of long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (LTFU UKCTOCS), having initially (2014) used the proportional hazards (PH) Cox model.

Methods: We wrote to 12 experts in statistics/epidemiology/screening trials, setting out current evidence, the importance of pre-specification, our previous mortality analysis (2014) and three possible choices for the follow-up analysis (2020) of the mortality outcome: (A) all data (2001-2020) using the Cox model (2014), (B) new data (2015-2020) only and (C) all data (2001-2020) using a test that allows for delayed effects.

Results: Of 11 respondents, eight supported changing the 2014 approach to allow for a potential delayed effect (option C), suggesting various tests while three favoured retaining the Cox model (option A). Consequently, we opted for the Versatile test introduced in 2016 which maintains good power for early, constant or delayed effects. We retained the Royston-Parmar model to estimate absolute differences in disease-specific mortality at 5, 10, 15 and 18 years.

Conclusions: The decision to alter the follow-up analysis for the primary outcome on the basis of new evidence and using new statistical methodology for long-term follow-up is novel and has implications beyond UKCTOCS. There is an urgent need for consensus building on how best to design, test, estimate and report mortality outcomes from long-term randomised cancer screening trials.

Trial Registration: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7919310PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05125-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cancer screening
12
long-term follow-up
12
mortality analysis
12
delayed effects
8
statistical methodology
8
analysis 2020
8
follow-up analysis
8
data 2001-2020
8
mortality
7
delayed
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!