Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration
- PMID: 39212064
- DOI: 10.1002/pds.5885
Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration
Abstract
Purpose: Although the limitations of hazard ratios (HRs) for quantifying treatment effects in right-censored data have been widely discussed, HRs are still preferentially reported over other, more interpretable effect measures. This may stem from the fact that there are few applied examples that directly contrast the HR and its interpretation with alternative effect measures.
Methods: We analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials comparing panitumumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC) with SOCC alone as first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We report the effect of treatment with panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the HR and the Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative incidence (risk). Further analyses included examining the cumulative incidence curves; kernel-smoothed, non-parametric hazards curves; fitting the Cox model with a continuous time variable; and estimating restricted mean survival as well as median survival.
Results: The HR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.93), while the risk ratio (or relative risk [i.e., ratio of the cumulative incidence among the treated versus comparator]) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.02). These two measures suggest apparently different conclusions: either a treatment benefit or no effect. Through subsequent analyses, we demonstrated that, while the cumulative incidence of the outcome was similar by the end of follow-up regardless of treatment, the panitumumab treated group experienced longer PFS than those randomized to SOCC. Substantial nonproportional hazards were evident with panitumumab treatment reducing the hazard of progression/mortality during the first ~1.75 years but associated with an increased hazard of progress/mortality thereafter.
Discussion: This example underscores the difficulties in interpreting HRs, particularly in the setting of qualitative violations of proportional hazards, and the value of quantifying treatment effects via multiple effect measures.
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Survival Outcomes in Patients With RAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Classified According to Köhne Prognostic Category and BRAF Mutation Status.Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Mar;17(1):50-57.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2017.09.006. Epub 2017 Sep 28. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018. PMID: 29096990
-
Association of Tumor HER3 Messenger RNA Expression With Panitumumab Efficacy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):564-568. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3168. JAMA Oncol. 2018. PMID: 29075780 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study.J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28(31):4697-705. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4860. Epub 2010 Oct 4. J Clin Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20921465 Clinical Trial.
-
FOLFOX plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) is an effective first-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(10):e0097. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010097. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018. PMID: 29517682 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 27;1(1):CD006875. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28128439 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- A. Sashegyi and D. Ferry, “On the Interpretation of the Hazard Ratio and Communication of Survival Benefit,” Oncologist 22, no. 4 (2017): 484–486, https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016‐0198.
-
- M. A. Hernán, “The Hazards of Hazard Ratios,” Epidemiology 21, no. 1 (2010): 13–15, https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43.
-
- O. O. Aalen, R. J. Cook, and K. Røysland, “Does Cox Analysis of a Randomized Survival Study Yield a Causal Treatment Effect?” Lifetime Data Analysis 21, no. 4 (2015): 579–593, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985‐015‐9335‐y.
-
- T. Martinussen, S. Vansteelandt, and P. K. Andersen, “Subtleties in the Interpretation of Hazard Contrasts,” Lifetime Data Analysis 26, no. 4 (2020): 833–855, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985‐020‐09501‐5.
-
- M. J. Stensrud, J. M. Aalen, O. O. Aalen, and M. Valberg, “Limitations of Hazard Ratios in Clinical Trials,” European Heart Journal 40, no. 17 (2019): 1378–1383, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy770.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
