Background Large phase III clinical trials convey a lot of important information besides the main analysis of the treatment effect. For example, the use of multicenter clinical trial data to identify prognostic indices is now common. In addition, the study of heterogeneity in patient outcome between centers has received considerable attention in recent years. In this paper, we explain and illustrate a method used to investigate such heterogeneity with data from an early breast cancer clinical trial.
Methods The inclusion of a random effect for center in a Cox proportional hazards model allows us to study the heterogeneity in time-to-event outcomes between centers. Such a model has the major advantage that it provides a measure of the spread of outcomes over centers. This technique is illustrated using data from EORTC trial 10854, a randomized phase III trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy with no perioperative chemotherapy for early breast cancer; 2793 patients were entered by 14 centers.
Results Substantial heterogeneity between centers was detected for disease-free survival. This can be explained by the geographical area in which the center is located, with better outcomes achieved in France as compared with southern Europe and South Africa. None of the prognostic factors considered could explain this heterogeneity.
Conclusion Although clinical trials are run with the objective of removing as much heterogeneity as possible, some heterogeneity in the outcome of patients between centers may remain, as was the case in our study. The use of a random effect for center within a Cox PH model is an excellent method to investigate this heterogeneity. Such types of analyses, although exploratory, provide further insight into possible factors which may have an impact on the patient's outcome.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Legrand C, Sylvester R, Duchateau L, Janssen P, Therasse P. Treatment outcome studies: pitfalls in current methods and practice. Eur J Cancer2002; 38: 1173–1180.
2.
2. Duchateau L, Janssen P, Lindsey P, Legrand C, Nguti R, Sylvester R. The shared frailty model and the power for heterogeneity tests in multicenter trials. Comput Statist Data Anal2001; 40: 603–620.
3.
3. Glidden DV, Vittinghoff E. Modelling clustered survival data from multicentre clinical trials. Statist Med2004; 23: 369–388.
4.
4. Yamaguchi T, Ohashi Y. Investigating centre effects in a multi-centre clinical trial of superficial bladder cancer. Statist Med1999; 18: 1961–1171.
5.
5. Clahsen PC, van de Velde CHJ, Julien JP et al. Improved local control and disease-free survival after perioperative chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group study. J Clin Oncol1996; 14: 745–753.
6.
6. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CHJ, Julien JP et al. Improved survival after one course of perioperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: long term results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 10854. Eur J Cancer2001; 37: 2184–2293.
7.
7. McGilchrist CA, Aisbett CW. Regression with frailty in survival analysis. Biometrics1991; 47: 461–466.
8.
8. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML.Survival analysis. Techniques for censored and truncated data. Springer, 1997.
16. Kelly PJ. A review of software packages for analyzing correlated survival data. Am Statist2004; 58: 337–342.
17.
17. Duchateau L, Janssen P. Understanding heterogeneity in generalized mixed and frailty models. Am. Statist.2005; 59: 143–146.
18.
18. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst2000; 92: 1143–1150.
