Adjusting for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials - A simulation study and a simplified two-stage method.

Estimates of the overall survival benefit of new cancer treatments are often confounded by treatment switching in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) - whereby patients randomised to the control group are permitted to switch onto the experimental treatment upon disease progression. In health technology assessment, estimates of the unconfounded overall survival benefit associated with the new treatment are needed. Several switching adjustment methods have been advocated in the literature, some of which have been used in health technology assessment. However, it is unclear which methods are likely to produce least bias in realistic RCT-based scenarios. We simulated RCTs in which switching, associated with patient prognosis, was permitted. Treatment effect size and time dependency, switching proportions and disease severity were varied across scenarios. We assessed the performance of alternative adjustment methods based upon bias, coverage and mean squared error, related to the estimation of true restricted mean survival in the absence of switching in the control group. We found that when the treatment effect was not time-dependent, rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and iterative parameter estimation methods produced low levels of bias. However, in the presence of a time-dependent treatment effect, these methods produced higher levels of bias, similar to those produced by an inverse probability of censoring weights method. The inverse probability of censoring weights and structural nested models produced high levels of bias when switching proportions exceeded 85%. A simplified two-stage Weibull method produced low bias across all scenarios and provided the treatment switching mechanism is suitable, represents an appropriate adjustment method.

Current attitudes of head and neck oncologists in the United Kingdom to induction chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a survey of centres participating in a national randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer (SCCHN) remains controversial in the absence of clear evidence to define its role. As part of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study of CRT for stage III/IV laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancers (ART DECO, CRUK/10/018), we have examined the attitudes of oncologists in the United Kingdom (UK) to IC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Head and neck oncologists across the UK who expressed an interest in participating in the ART DECO trial were asked to complete a short written questionnaire designed to identify current UK practice of IC for stage III-IVb SCCHN. Completed questionnaires were returned to the clinical trials office prior to patient recruitment. RESULTS: Clinicians from twenty-five/48 centres (52.1%) responded. Twenty centres (80%) elected to use IC in the trial. For stage III disease, 80% of centres did not prescribe IC for T1N1 disease and 60% did not offer IC for T3N0 disease. Patients with bulky primary tumours or extensive nodal disease were more likely to receive IC. Thirteen prescribing centres (65%) use 3 drugs (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil) compared to 7 (35%) using 2 drugs (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil). Fifteen centres (75%) prescribed 2 cycles of IC, and 5 (25%) prescribed 3 cycles. There was variation in the dosage for both the 2- and 3-drug regimens. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that clinical practice in the UK is currently divided between a 2- versus 3-drug regimen for IC for specific subgroups of patients. A consensus regarding the optimal combinations and dosages is required before further optimization of systemic therapy with other cytotoxics and biological agents is attempted.