Assessing quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: Correcting for missing data

Background Health-related quality of life is a topic of current interest. This paper considers a randomized phase III study of radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (docetaxel) versus radiation therapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer, stage III A/B. Longitudinal data on quality of life have been obtained through repeated administration of a multi-item questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Missingness in the data is owing to patients having failed to complete the questionnaire at some of the scheduled filling-in times. Methods We have analysed a monotone (in terms of missingness) subset of the data as regards estimation of the mean score of a summary measure of self-reported quality of life in a hypothetical drop-out-free population at different points in time. Missingness is a difficult issue of great importance. We have therefore chosen to compare three different methods that are relatively easy to implement: the linear-increments method, the inverse-probability-weighting method and the Markov-process method. Single imputation has been applied in a supplementary analysis to fill in for all the non-consecutive missing score values prior to the execution of the estimation procedure. Results For the response in focus, the observed mean score at a certain time is larger than the estimated mean scores, which implies that the true mean score is easily overestimated unless the missingness is appropriately adjusted for. Comparison of the treatment arms shows a significant difference in mean score at the end of treatment. Conclusion Use of proper methodology developed for analysing data subject to missingness is necessary to reduce potential estimation bias. The quality of life of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (docetaxel) appears somewhat worse than that of patients receiving radiation therapy alone in the period during which treatment is given. The conclusions are robust for the choice of statistical methods

Assessing quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: Correcting for missing data

Abstract Background Health-related quality of life is a topic of current interest. This paper considers a randomized phase III study of radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (docetaxel) versus radiation therapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer, stage III A/B. Longitudinal data on quality of life have been obtained through repeated administration of a multi-item questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Missingness in the data is owing to patients having failed to complete the questionnaire at some of the scheduled filling-in times. Methods We have analysed a monotone (in terms of missingness) subset of the data as regards estimation of the mean score of a summary measure of self-reported quality of life in a hypothetical drop-out-free population at different points in time. Missingness is a difficult issue of great importance. We have therefore chosen to compare three different methods that are relatively easy to implement: the linear-increments method, the inverse-probability-weighting method and the Markov-process method. Single imputation has been applied in a supplementary analysis to fill in for all the non-consecutive missing score values prior to the execution of the estimation procedure. Results For the response in focus, the observed mean score at a certain time is larger than the estimated mean scores, which implies that the true mean score is easily overestimated unless the missingness is appropriately adjusted for. Comparison of the treatment arms shows a significant difference in mean score at the end of treatment. Conclusion Use of proper methodology developed for analysing data subject to missingness is necessary to reduce potential estimation bias. The quality of life of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (docetaxel) appears somewhat worse than that of patients receiving radiation therapy alone in the period during which treatment is given. The conclusions are robust for the choice of statistical methods.</p

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE).METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04].CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.</p

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE).METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04].CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.</p