Implementing competing risks in discrete event simulation:the event-specific probabilities and distributions approach

Background: Although several strategies for modelling competing events in discrete event simulation (DES) exist, a methodological gap for the event-specific probabilities and distributions (ESPD) approach when dealing with censored data remains. This study defines and illustrates the ESPD strategy for censored data. Methods: The ESPD approach assumes that events are generated through a two-step process. First, the type of event is selected according to some (unknown) mixture proportions. Next, the times of occurrence of the events are sampled from a corresponding survival distribution. Both of these steps can be modelled based on covariates. Performance was evaluated through a simulation study, considering sample size and levels of censoring. Additionally, an oncology-related case study was conducted to assess the ability to produce realistic results, and to demonstrate its implementation using both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks in R.Results: The simulation study showed good performance of the ESPD approach, with accuracy decreasing as sample sizes decreased and censoring levels increased. The average relative absolute error of the event probability (95%-confidence interval) ranged from 0.04 (0.00; 0.10) to 0.23 (0.01; 0.66) for 60% censoring and sample size 50, showing that increased censoring and decreased sample size resulted in lower accuracy. The approach yielded realistic results in the case study. Discussion: The ESPD approach can be used to model competing events in DES based on censored data. Further research is warranted to compare the approach to other modelling approaches for DES, and to evaluate its usefulness in estimating cumulative event incidences in a broader context. </p

Comparison of Timed Automata with Discrete Event Simulation for Modeling Personalized Treatment Decisions:the Case of Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer

Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the usefulness of two promising alternative modeling techniques, Timed Automata (TA) originating from informatics, and Discrete Event Simulation (DES) known in operations research, for modeling todays complex and personalized treatment decisions over time, involving multiple interactions and decision gates. Methods: The usefulness of both modeling techniques was assessed in a case study on the treatment of metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) in which Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC) may be used as a response marker for switching first to second line treatment. Techniques were compared on user-friendliness, input requirements, input possibilities, model checking facilities, and results. Input parameters were similar for both models, consisting of costs, QoL, treatment effectiveness, diagnostic performance, physicians’ behavior and survival. Primary outcome measures were health outcomes, expressed in QALYs, and costs. Results: Modelling was considered easier using TA, as this approach allows independent modeling of the actors and elements comprising the treatment process, such as patients, physicians, tests and treatments, and their mutual interaction and communication. Furthermore, the statistical model checking feature in the TA software was found to be a powerful tool for validation. Input requirements and possibilities were similar for both modelling approaches in this case study. Both modelling approaches yield comparable results. Using TA, CTC reduced first and second line treatment by, on average, 108.9 and 107.6 days, respectively. Using DES, treatment was reduced by 83.6 and 85.0 days. CTC therefore reduced healthcare costs by €28,998 and €21,992 according to TA and DES, respectively. Conclusions: Both Timed Automata and Discrete Event Simulation seem to be suitable for modeling complex and personalized treatment processes like that of mCRPC. Timed Automata is a new and interesting alternative modeling technique, as it allows explicit separation of model components and supports statistical model checking to validate models

Cost Effectiveness of Molecular Diagnostic Testing Algorithms for the Treatment Selection of Frontline Ibrutinib for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Australia

BACKGROUND: Clinical indications for ibrutinib reimbursement in Australia should consider the inclusion of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) harboring prognostically unfavorable TP53/IGHV genomic aberrations. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of five first-line treatment strategies in CLL for young (aged ≤ 65 years), fit patients without significant comorbidities: (1) no testing (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab [FCR] for all), (2) test for del(17p) only, (3) test for TP53 gene mutation status, (4) test for TP53 and IGHV gene mutation status and (5) no testing (ibrutinib for all).METHOD: A decision analytic model (decision tree and partitioned survival model) was developed from the Australian healthcare system perspective with a lifetime horizon. Comparative treatment effects were estimated from indirect treatment comparisons and survival analysis using several studies. Costs, utility and adverse events were derived from public literature sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the impact of modeling uncertainties on outcomes.RESULTS: Strategy 1 was associated with 5.69 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost 458,836 Australian dollars (AUD). All other strategies had greater effectiveness but were more expensive than Strategy 1. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 AUD per QALY gained, Strategy 1 was most cost effective with an estimated probability of 68.8%. Strategy 4 was cost effective between thresholds 155,000-432,300 AUD per QALY gained, and Strategy 5 &gt;432,300 AUD per QALY gained.CONCLUSION: Population targeting using mutation testing for TP53 and IGHV when performed with del(17p) testing specifically in the context of frontline ibrutinib choice does not make a cost-ineffective treatment into a cost-effective treatment.</p

Quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes

Background: Novel therapies in metastatic cancers have contributed to improvements in survival outcomes, yet real-world data suggest that improvements may be mainly driven by those patient groups who already had the highest survival outcomes. This study aimed to develop and apply a framework for quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes based on published aggregate data.Methods: Nine (N = 9) novel therapies for metastatic breast cancer (mBC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) were identified, 3 for each cancer type. Individual patient data (IPD) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were replicated from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. For each cancer type, data were pooled for the novel therapies and comparators separately and weighted based on sample size to ensure equal contribution of each therapy in the analyses. Parametric (mixture) distributions were fitted to the weighted data to model and extrapolate survival. The inequality in survival was defined by the absolute difference between groups with the highest and lowest survival for 2 stratifications: one for which survival was stratified into 2 groups and one using 5 groups. Additionally, a linear regression model was fitted to survival estimates for the 5 groups, with the regression coefficient or slope considered as the inequality gradient (IG). The impact of the pooled novel therapies was subsequently defined as the change in survival inequality relative to the pooled comparator therapies. A probabilistic analysis was performed to quantify parameter uncertainty.Results: The analyses found that novel therapies were associated with significant increases in inequalities in survival outcomes relative to their comparators, except in terms of OS for mNSCLC. For mBC, the inequalities in OS increased by 13.9 (95% CI: 1.4; 26.6) months, or 25.0%, if OS was stratified in 5 groups. The IG for mBC increased by 3.2 (0.3; 6.1) months, or 24.7%. For mCRC, inequalities increased by 6.7 (3.0; 10.5) months, or 40.4%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 1.6 (0.7; 2.4) months, or 40.2%. For mNSCLC, inequalities decreased by 14.9 (−84.5; 19.0) months, or 12.2%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG decreased by 2.0 (−16.1; 5.1) months, or 5.5%. Results for the stratification based on 2 groups demonstrated significant increases in OS inequality for all cancer types. In terms of PFS, the increases in survival inequalities were larger in a relative sense compared with OS. For mBC, PFS inequalities increased by 8.7 (5.9; 11.6) months, or 71.7%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 2.0 (1.3; 2.6) months, or 67.6%. For mCRC, PFS inequalities increased by 5.4 (4.2; 6.6) months, or 147.6%, for the same stratification. The IG increased by 1.3 (1.1; 1.6) months, or 172.7%. For mNSCLC, inequalities increased by 18.2 (12.5; 24.4) months, or 93.8%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG increased by 4.0 (2.8; 5.4) months, or 88.1%. Results from the stratification based on 2 groups were similar.Conclusion: Novel therapies for mBC, mCRC, and mNSCLC are generally associated with significant increases in survival inequalities relative to their comparators in randomized controlled trials, though inequalities in OS for mNSCLC decreased nonsignificantly when stratified based on 5 groups. Although further research using real-world IPD is warranted to assess how, for example, social determinants of health affect the impact of therapies on health inequalities among patient groups, the proposed framework can provide important insights in the absence of such data

Evaluation of the performance of algorithms mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D index in a metastatic colorectal cancer cost-effectiveness model

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness models require quality of life utilities calculated from generic preference-based questionnaires, such as EQ-5D. We evaluated the performance of available algorithms for QLQ-C30 conversion into EQ-5D-3L based ut