Why the study?
Methods assuming proportional hazards to investigate prognosis in cancer-associated thrombosis entail a risk of misinterpreting or overlooking key traits or time-varying effects.
Do flexible and multistate models improve predictions of thrombotic risk and survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer compared to proportional hazards models?
Do flexible and multistate models improve predictions of thrombotic risk and survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer compared to proportional hazards models?
Flexible and multistate models provide more accurate and dynamic predictions of thrombotic risk and its time-varying effects on survival in cancer patients compared to traditional proportional hazards models.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Thrombosis shortens survival in advanced gastric cancer; extends dynamic modeling of CAT but leaves open routine clinical adoption.
Research into cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) entails managing dynamic data that pose an analytical challenge. Thus, methods that assume proportional hazards to investigate prognosis entail a risk of misinterpreting or overlooking key traits or time-varying effects. We examined the AGAMENON registry, which collects data from 2,129 patients with advanced gastric cancer. An accelerated failure time (AFT) multistate model and flexible competing risks regression were used to scrutinize the time-varying effect of CAT, as well as to estimate how covariates dynamically predict cumulative incidence. The AFT model revealed that thrombosis shortened progression-free survival and overall survival with adjusted time ratios of 0.72 and 0.56, respectively. Nevertheless, its prognostic effect was nonproportional and disappeared over time if the subject managed to survive long enough. CAT that occurred later had a more pronounced prognostic effect. In the flexible competing risks model, multiple covariates were seen to have significant time-varying effects on the cumulative incidence of CAT (Khorana score, secondary thromboprophylaxis, high tumor burden, and cisplatin-containing regimen), whereas other predictors exerted a constant effect (signet ring cells and primary thromboprophylaxis). The model that assumes proportional hazards was incapable of capturing the effect of these covariates and predicted the cumulative incidence in a biased way. This study evinces that flexible and multistate models are a useful and innovative method to describe the dynamic effect of variables associated with CAT and should be more widely used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carmona‐Bayonas et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: