Department of Statistics, University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 7;8(10):e74368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074368. eCollection 2013.
Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) from related or unrelated donors may cure patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a heterogeneous group of clonal stem cell disorders. We analysed 384 elderly patients (55-69 years) with advanced MDS who received either ASCT (n=247) and were reported to The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) or a non -transplant approach (n=137) reported to the Düsseldorf registry. Besides an attempt to answer the question of "comparison", the purpose of this work is to explain the difficulties in comparing a non-transplant with a transplant cohort, when death before transplant is likely but unknown and the selection of patients for transplant is based on assumptions. It shows which methods are almost always biased and that even the most sophisticated approaches crucially rely on clinical assumptions. Using the most appropriate model for our data, we derive an overall univariate non-significant survival disadvantage for the transplant cohort (HR: 1.29, p = 0.11). We show that such an "average" hazard ratio is however misleading due to non-proportionality of the hazards reflecting early treatment related mortality, the occurring of which is logically correlated with the interval between diagnosis and transplant creating a disproportional drop in the (reconstructed) survival curve of the transplanted patients. Also in multivariate analysis (correcting for age > 60 (HR: 1.4, p = 0.02) and abnormal cytogenetics (HR: 1.46, p = 0.01)), transplantation seems to be worse (HR: 1.39, p = 0.05) but only in the (incorrect but commonly applied) model without time varying covariates. The long term (time depending) hazard ratio is shown to be virtually 1 and overall survival is virtually identical in both groups. Nonetheless no conclusion can be reached from a clinical point of view without assumptions which are by their very nature untestable unless all patients would be followed from diagnosis.
异基因造血干细胞移植(ASCT)可治愈骨髓增生异常综合征(MDS)患者,MDS 是一组异质性克隆性干细胞疾病。我们分析了 384 名年龄较大的 MDS 患者(55-69 岁),他们接受了 ASCT(n=247),并向欧洲血液和骨髓移植协会(EBMT)报告,或者接受了非移植治疗(n=137),并向杜塞尔多夫注册中心报告。除了尝试回答“比较”问题外,这项工作的目的还在于解释在移植前死亡的可能性但未知且移植患者的选择基于假设的情况下,将非移植与移植队列进行比较时的困难。它展示了哪些方法几乎总是有偏差的,即使是最复杂的方法也严重依赖于临床假设。使用最适合我们数据的模型,我们得出了移植队列总体无显著生存劣势的单变量非显著结果(HR:1.29,p=0.11)。我们表明,由于风险的非比例性反映了早期治疗相关的死亡率,这种“平均”风险比是具有误导性的,而这种死亡率的发生与诊断和移植之间的时间间隔逻辑相关,这会导致移植患者的(重建)生存曲线不成比例地下降。即使在多变量分析中(校正年龄>60 岁(HR:1.4,p=0.02)和异常细胞遗传学(HR:1.46,p=0.01)),移植似乎也更差(HR:1.39,p=0.05),但仅在没有时间变化协变量的(错误但常用)模型中。还显示了长期(时间依赖)风险比几乎为 1,两组的总生存率几乎相同。但是,如果不假设所有患者都从诊断开始接受随访,否则从临床角度来看,不能得出任何结论,而这些假设本质上是无法检验的。