[临床试验中不同治疗转换分析方法的比较研究]。

Q3 Medicine
Zhiyue Liang, Lishan Xu, Keke Li, Milai Yu, Shengli An
{"title":"[临床试验中不同治疗转换分析方法的比较研究]。","authors":"Zhiyue Liang, Lishan Xu, Keke Li, Milai Yu, Shengli An","doi":"10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2025.05.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the commonly used methods for analyzing treatment switching in clinical trials to facilitate selection of optimal methods in different scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on the data characteristics of patient conversion in oncology clinical trials, we simulated the survival time of patients across different scenarios and compared the bias, mean square error and coverages of the treatment effects derived from different methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample size had an almost negligible impact on the outcomes of the various methods. Compared to conventional methods, more complex methods (RPSFTM, IPCW, TSE, and IPE) resulted in lower errors across different scenarios. The IPCW method could cause a significant increase in errors in cases where the probability of conversion was high. The TSE method had the lowest error and mean squared error when the risk was low and the probability of conversion was high. The IPE method had an obvious advantage in the scenario with a low probability of conversion, but it may slightly underestimate the treatment effect when the inflation factor was small.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of a specific method for analyzing cohort transition should be made based on considerations of both the probability of conversion and inflation factor in different scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":18962,"journal":{"name":"南方医科大学学报杂志","volume":"45 5","pages":"1093-1102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[A comparative study of different methods for treatment switching analysis in clinical trials].\",\"authors\":\"Zhiyue Liang, Lishan Xu, Keke Li, Milai Yu, Shengli An\",\"doi\":\"10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2025.05.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the commonly used methods for analyzing treatment switching in clinical trials to facilitate selection of optimal methods in different scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on the data characteristics of patient conversion in oncology clinical trials, we simulated the survival time of patients across different scenarios and compared the bias, mean square error and coverages of the treatment effects derived from different methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample size had an almost negligible impact on the outcomes of the various methods. Compared to conventional methods, more complex methods (RPSFTM, IPCW, TSE, and IPE) resulted in lower errors across different scenarios. The IPCW method could cause a significant increase in errors in cases where the probability of conversion was high. The TSE method had the lowest error and mean squared error when the risk was low and the probability of conversion was high. The IPE method had an obvious advantage in the scenario with a low probability of conversion, but it may slightly underestimate the treatment effect when the inflation factor was small.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of a specific method for analyzing cohort transition should be made based on considerations of both the probability of conversion and inflation factor in different scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"南方医科大学学报杂志\",\"volume\":\"45 5\",\"pages\":\"1093-1102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"南方医科大学学报杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2025.05.23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"南方医科大学学报杂志","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2025.05.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较临床试验中常用的治疗切换分析方法,以便在不同情况下选择最佳方法。方法:根据肿瘤临床试验中患者转化的数据特点,模拟不同情景下患者的生存时间,比较不同方法得出的治疗效果的偏倚、均方误差和覆盖范围。结果:样本量对各种方法结果的影响几乎可以忽略不计。与传统方法相比,更复杂的方法(RPSFTM、IPCW、TSE和IPE)在不同场景下的误差更低。在转换概率较高的情况下,IPCW方法可能导致误差显著增加。当风险较低、转换概率较高时,TSE方法的误差和均方误差最小。IPE方法在转化概率较低的情况下具有明显的优势,但在通货膨胀因子较小的情况下可能会略微低估处理效果。结论:在选择具体的队列转换分析方法时,应综合考虑不同情景下的转换概率和通货膨胀因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[A comparative study of different methods for treatment switching analysis in clinical trials].

Objectives: To compare the commonly used methods for analyzing treatment switching in clinical trials to facilitate selection of optimal methods in different scenarios.

Methods: Based on the data characteristics of patient conversion in oncology clinical trials, we simulated the survival time of patients across different scenarios and compared the bias, mean square error and coverages of the treatment effects derived from different methods.

Results: The sample size had an almost negligible impact on the outcomes of the various methods. Compared to conventional methods, more complex methods (RPSFTM, IPCW, TSE, and IPE) resulted in lower errors across different scenarios. The IPCW method could cause a significant increase in errors in cases where the probability of conversion was high. The TSE method had the lowest error and mean squared error when the risk was low and the probability of conversion was high. The IPE method had an obvious advantage in the scenario with a low probability of conversion, but it may slightly underestimate the treatment effect when the inflation factor was small.

Conclusions: The choice of a specific method for analyzing cohort transition should be made based on considerations of both the probability of conversion and inflation factor in different scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
南方医科大学学报杂志
南方医科大学学报杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
208
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信