Assessing the Performance of Alternative Methods for Estimating Long-Term Survival Benefit of Immuno-oncology Therapies

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the accuracy and consistency of established methods of extrapolating mean survival for immuno-oncology (IO) therapies, the extent of any systematic biases in estimating long-term clinical benefit, what influences the magnitude of any bias, and the potential implications for health technology assessment. MethodsA targeted literature search was conducted to identify published long-term follow-up from clinical trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Earlier published results were identified and Kaplan-Meier estimates for short- and long-term follow-up were digitized and converted to pseudo–individual patient data using an established algorithm. Six standard parametric, 5 flexible parametric, and 2 mixture-cure models (MCMs) were used to extrapolate long-term survival. Mean and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated and compared between short- and long-term follow-up. ResultsPredicted RMST from extrapolation of early data underestimated observed RMST in long-term follow-up for 184 of 271 extrapolations. All models except the MCMs frequently underestimated observed RMST. Mean survival estimates increased with longer follow-up in 196 of 270 extrapolations. The increase exceeded 20% in 122 extrapolations. Log-logistic and log-normal models showed the smallest change with additional follow-up. MCM performance varied substantially with functional form. ConclusionsStandard and flexible parametric models frequently underestimate mean survival for IO treatments. Log-logistic and log-normal models may be the most pragmatic and parsimonious solutions for estimating IO mean survival from immature data. Flexible parametric models may be preferred when the data used in health technology assessment are more mature. MCMs fitted to immature data produce unreliable results and are not recommended.