Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2025-11
The Acceptance of Overall Survival Extrapolation Methods in Solid Tumor Treatments by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England,France,and Australia between 2017 and 2022
Survival extrapolation is used to predict patients’ overall survival beyond clinical trial follow-up. It can significantly affect the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis and subsequent pricing and reimbursement decisions. However, selecting an appropriate model involves subjectivity, leading to discrepancies between methods submitted by manufacturers and those accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This review describes the acceptance and criticisms of overall survival extrapolation methods by HTA agencies in England, France, and Australia.
Methods
Electronic searches conducted on September 4, 2022, identified HTA evaluations for oncology therapies indicated for the treatment of solid tumors from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England, the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) in France, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, published between August 2017 and August 2022. Information on the overall survival extrapolation model submitted by the manufacturer was extracted. The acceptance decision of the HTA agency and the key criticisms were also recorded.
Results
A total of 140 HTA evaluations were identified. The initial overall survival extrapolation method was accepted in 21% of cases. The most frequently cited criticisms related to a lack of or inappropriate incorporation of treatment effect waning over time (31%). Other criticisms included choice of parametric distribution, in which multiple distributions were often considered plausible (24%); immaturity of survival data (15%); and concerns about the proportional hazards assumption, which lacked clinical validity (8%).
Conclusion
This review highlights the low acceptance of survival extrapolation methods and the areas of discordance between manufacturers and HTA agencies in England, France, and Australia. Low acceptance rates of survival extrapolation methods by HTA bodies can affect pricing and reimbursement decisions of new therapies, delaying patient access.
Highlights
This review found that the survival extrapolation methods initially submitted by companies were accepted in only 21% of cases.
The most common areas of discordance between companies and HTA agencies were inappropriate modeling of treatment effect over time, choice of parametric distribution, immaturity of survival data, and concerns about the proportional hazards assumption.
There is a need for more consistent guidance on the selection of an appropriate extrapolation method to limit the inherent subjectivity surrounding survival curve selection.
LatimerNRAdlerAI. Extrapolation beyond the end of trials to estimate long term survival and cost effectiveness. BMJ Med. 2022;1(1):e000094. DOI:10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000094
2.
DakinHDevlinNFengYRiceNO’NeillPParkinD. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1256–71. DOI:10.1002/hec.3086
WilliamsCLewseyJDMackayDF, et al. Estimation of survival probabilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses: a comparison of a multi-state modeling survival analysis approach with partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modeling. Med Decis Making. 2017;37:427–39.
11.
RoystonPParmarMK. Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2002;21:2175–97.
12.
KearnsBStevensonMDTriantafyllopoulosKMancaA. Generalized linear models for flexible parametric modeling of the hazard function. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):867–78. DOI:10.1177/0272989x19873661
13.
JansenJP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):61. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-11-61
JakobsenLHAnderssonTMBicclerJLEl-GalalyTCBøgstedM. Estimating the loss of lifetime function using flexible parametric relative survival models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):23. DOI:10.1186/s12874-019-0661-8
16.
SussmanMCriveraCBennerJAdairN. Applying state-of-the-art survival extrapolation techniques to the evaluation of CAR-T therapies: evidence from a systematic literature review. Adv Ther. 2021;38(8):4178–94. DOI:10.1007/s12325-021-01841-4
17.
BullementALatimerNRBell GorrodH. Survival extrapolation in cancer immunotherapy: a validation-based case study. Value Health. 2019;22(3):276–83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.10.007
18.
OthusMBansalAErbaHRamseyS. Bias in mean survival from fitting cure models with limited follow-up. Value Health. 2020;23(8):1034–39. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.015
19.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Atezolizumab for treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum containing chemotherapy. Technology appraisal guidance TA525. London: NICE; 2018. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta525 [Accessed 10 July, 2025].
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Avelumab for Maintenance Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer after Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Technology appraisal guidance TA788. London: NICE; 2022.
22.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ribociclib with Fulvestrant for Treating Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer after Endocrine Therapy. Technology appraisal guidance TA687. London: NICE; 2021.
23.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Darolutamide with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Treating Hormone-Relapsed Non-metastatic Prostate Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA6602020. London: NICE; 2020.
24.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab with Axitinib for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology appraisal guidance TA650. London: NICE; 2020.
25.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cabozantinib for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology appraisal guidance TA542. London: NICE; 2018.
KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab). En association au lenvatinib dans le traitement des patientes adultes atteintes d’un cancer de l’endomètre avancé ou récidivant dont la maladie progresse pendant ou après un traitement antérieur à base de sels de platine, reçu quel que soit le stade, et qui ne sont pas éligibles à une chirurgie curative ou à une radiothérapie. Saint-Denis La Plaine (France): Haute Autorité de Santé; 2022. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3334585/fr/keytruda-pembrolizumab-cancer-de-l-endometre [Accessed 31 March, 2023].
28.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab for Previously Treated Unresectable Advanced or Recurrent Oesophageal Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA707. London: NICE; 2021.
Haute Autorité de Santé. KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab) En association à une chimiothérapie à base de sel de platine + pemetrexed dans le Cancer bronchique non à petites cellules non épidermoïde (en 1 re ligne). Saint-Denis La Plaine (France): Haute Autorité de Santé; 2019. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-07/keytruda_12022019_avis_efficience.pdf [Accessed 10 July, 2025].
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Untreated Metastatic Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA770. London: NICE; 2022.
33.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab with Ipilimumab and Chemotherapy for Untreated Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA724. London: NICE; 2021.
34.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Niraparib for Maintenance Treatment of Advanced Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer after Response to First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Technology appraisal guidance TA673. London: NICE; 2021.
35.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Crizotinib for treating ROS1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA1021. London: NICE; 2018.
36.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Entrectinib for Treating ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA643. London: NICE; 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pemigatinib for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Fusion or Rearrangement. Technology appraisal guidance TA722. London: NICE; 2021
39.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alpelisib with Fulvestrant for Treating Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, PIK3CA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer. London: NICE; 2022.
40.
OPDIVO (nivolumab): En association à une chimiothérapie dans le traitement des patients adultes atteints d’un adénocarcinome gastrique, de la jonction oeso-gastrique ou de l’œsophage avancé ou métastatique, en première ligne de traitement chez les patients HER2-négatif, dont les tumeurs expriment PD-L1 avec un CPS>5. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/opdivo_07062022_avis_economique.pdf
41.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy for Untreated, Triple-Negative, Locally Recurrent Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA801. London: NICE; 2022.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Olaparib plus bevacizumab for maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer. Technology appraisal guidance TA693. London: NICE; 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta693 [Accessed 10 July, 2025].
44.
BagustABealeS. Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(3):343–51. DOI:10.1177/0272989x13497998
45.
GibsonEKoblbauerIBegumN. Modelling the survival outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs in economic evaluations: a systematic approach to data analysis and extrapolation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(12):1257–70. DOI:10.1007/s40273-017-0558-5
46.
LanitisTProskorovskyIAmbavaneA. Survival analysis in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with avelumab. Adv Ther. 2019;36(9):2327–41. DOI:10.1007/s12325-019-01034-0
47.
AnderssonTMRutherfordMJLambertPC. Illustration of different modelling assumptions for estimation of loss in expectation of life due to cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):145. DOI:10.1186/s12874-019-0785-x
48.
AnderssonTM-LDickmanPWElorantaSLambeMLambertPC. Estimating the loss in expectation of life due to cancer using flexible parametric survival models. Stat Med. 2013;32(30):5286–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5943
OuwensMJPhilipsZJansenJP. Network meta-analysis of parametric survival curves. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(3–4):258–71. DOI:10.1002/jrsm.25
51.
IshakKJKreifNBenedictA, et al. Overview of parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:663–75.
52.
BullementAWillisAAminASchlichtingMHatswellAJBharmalM. Evaluation of survival extrapolation in immuno-oncology using multiple pre-planned data cuts: learnings to aid in model selection. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):103. DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-00997-x
53.
GallacherDKimaniPStallardN. Extrapolating parametric survival models in health technology assessment using model averaging: a simulation study. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(4):476–84. DOI:10.1177/0272989x21992297
StargardterMSachdevRMilevS. POSB115 approaches for modeling treatment effect waning in Markov cohort models in NICE reviews of non-oncology agents. Value Health. 2022;25(1):S83.
56.
NegrínMANamJBriggsAH. Bayesian solutions for handling uncertainty in survival extrapolation. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(4):367–76. DOI:10.1177/0272989x16650669
OuwensMMukhopadhyayPZhangYHuangMLatimerNBriggsA. Estimating lifetime benefits associated with immuno-oncology therapies: challenges and approaches for overall survival extrapolations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1129–38. DOI:10.1007/s40273-019-00806-4
59.
BansalASullivanSDLinVW. Estimating long-term survival for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma treated with chimeric antigen receptor therapy: a comparison of standard and mixture cure models. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(3):294–8. DOI:10.1177/0272989x18820535
60.
GrantTSBurnsDKiffCLeeD. A case study examining the usefulness of cure modelling for the prediction of survival based on data maturity. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(4):385–95. DOI:10.1007/s40273-019-00867-5
61.
GrayJSullivanTLatimerNR, et al. Extrapolation of survival curves using standard parametric models and flexible parametric spline models: comparisons in large registry cohorts with advanced cancer. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:179–93.
62.
KearnsBStevensJRenS, et al. How uncertain is the survival extrapolation? A study of the impact of different parametric survival models on extrapolated uncertainty about hazard functions, lifetime mean survival and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:193–204.
63.
BagustABealeS. Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:343–51.
64.
GallacherDKimaniPStallardN. Extrapolating parametric survival models in health technology assessment using model averaging: a simulation study. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:476–84.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
