ABSTRACT
Background Cancer treatments can paradoxically appear to reduce the risk of non-cancer mortality in observational studies, due to residual confounding from treatment selection bias. Here we apply a novel method, Bias Reduction through Analysis of Competing Events (BRACE), to reduce bias in the presence of residual confounding.
Methods We studied 36630 prostate cancer patients, 4069 lung cancer patients, and 7117 head/neck cancer patients, using the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database. We estimated effects of intensive treatment (prostate: prostatectomy vs. radiotherapy; lung: lobectomy vs. sublobar resection or radiotherapy; head/neck: radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin and/or multiagent induction vs. radiotherapy with or without alternative systemic therapy) on cancer-specific mortality, non-cancer mortality, and overall survival (OS), using both multivariable Cox (MVA) and propensity score (inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW)) models. Next, we applied the BRACE method to adjust for residual confounding, based on the observed treatment effect on competing event and relative event hazards.
Results For each cohort, intensive treatment was associated with significantly reduced hazards for cancer-specific mortality, non-cancer mortality, and OS. Compared to the results for MVA and IPTW models, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the effect of intensive treatment on OS were attenuated in each cohort after applying BRACE: (prostate-MVA: 0.75 (0.71, 0.80), IPTW: 0.73 (0.66, 0.75), BRACE: 0.98 (0.95, 1.00); lung-0.79 (0.68, 0.91), 0.79 (0.66, 0.89), BRACE: 0.81 (0.65, 0.94); head/neck-0.71 (0.66, 0.76), 0.70 (0.66, 0.76), BRACE: 0.81 (0.76, 0.86)). BRACE estimates were similar to findings from meta-analyses and randomized trials.
Conclusions We found evidence of residual confounding in several observational cohorts after applying standard methods, which were mitigated after applying BRACE. Application of this method could provide more reliable estimates and inferences when residual confounding is identified and represents a novel approach to improving the validity of outcomes research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UC San Diego IRB
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos