Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study

A Tutorial on Net Benefit Regression for Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Censored Data from Randomized or Observational Studies

HIGHLIGHTS

We illustrate the steps involved in carrying out cost-effectiveness analysis using net benefit regressions with possibly censored demo data by providing step-by-step guidance and code applied to a data set.We demonstrate the importance of these new methods by illustrating how naïve methods for handling censoring can lead to biased cost-effectiveness results.

Role of chemotherapy in patients with nasopharynx carcinoma treated with radiotherapy (MAC-NPC): an updated individual patient data network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The meta-analysis of chemotherapy for nasopharynx carcinoma (MAC-NPC) collaborative group previously showed that the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to concomitant chemoradiotherapy had the highest survival benefit of the studied treatment regimens in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Due to the publication of new trials on induction chemotherapy, we updated the network meta-analysis.

METHODS

For this individual patient data network meta-analysis, trials of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma that completed accrual before Dec 31, 2016, were identified and updated individual patient data were obtained. Both general databases (eg, PubMed and Web of Science) and Chinese medical literature databases were searched. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. A frequentist network meta-analysis approach with a two-step random effect stratified by trial based on hazard ratio Peto estimator was used. Global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency, and p score to rank treatments, with higher scores indicating higher benefit therapies. Treatments were grouped into the following categories: radiotherapy alone, induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016042524.

FINDINGS

The network comprised 28 trials and included 8214 patients (6133 [74·7%] were men, 2073 [25·2%] were women, and eight [0·1%] had missing data) enrolled between Jan 1, 1988, and Dec 31, 2016. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·2-13·3). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (p=0·18), and inconsistency was borderline (p=0·10). The three treatments with the highest benefit for overall survival were induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio 0·75; 95% CI 0·59-0·96; p score 92%), induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (0·81; 0·69-0·95; p score 87%), and chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (0·88; 0·75-1·04; p score 72%), compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (p score 46%).

INTERPRETATION

The inclusion of new trials modified the conclusion of the previous network meta-analysis. In this updated network meta-analysis, the addition of either induction chemotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival over chemoradiotherapy alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

FUNDING

Institut National du Cancer and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

The impact of statistical properties of incremental monetary net benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio on health economic modeling choices

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy on whether to use incremental monetary net benefit (INMB) or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in health economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials. We studied the impact of restricted mean survival time (RMST) on the long-term projection of INMB and ICER.

METHODS

We analyzed the unbiasedness and efficiency of ICER and INMB by (1) deriving the metrics' expected values and variances based on theoretical probability distributions, (2) simulating their 15-year post-trial projections based on between-arm-RMST-gained through a 2 × 4 × 2 factorial experiment of Markov 2-state microsimulations. Simulations and comparison were run on the data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Study (COMPASS).

RESULTS

Our simulation findings using RMST showed that ICER was more efficient than INMB, regardless of disease populations, time horizon, modeling choices, and underlying probability distributions of incremental mean cost and effect. ICER had a small variance and thus showed its robustness to the choices of models.

CONCLUSION

INMB's variance varies with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold quadratically while ICER's variance with a WTP threshold value quadratically while ICER's variance with incremental-mean-cost quadratically. A simple and naïve model can sufficiently estimate ICER. Future metrics are expected to be health-economic-meaningful, unambiguous, unbiased, efficient, and statistical-inference-friendly.

Restricted Mean Survival Time Analysis to Estimate SGLT2i-Associated Heterogeneous Treatment Effects on Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiorenal Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan

IMPORTANCE

Increasing numbers of post hoc analyses have applied restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis on the aggregated-level data from clinical trials to report treatment effects, but studies that use individual-level claims data are needed to determine the feasibility of RMST analysis for quantifying treatment effects among patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical settings.

OBJECTIVES

To apply RMST analysis for assessing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i)-associated cardiovascular (CV) events and estimating heterogenous treatment effects (HTEs) on CV and kidney outcomes in routine clinical settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative effectiveness study of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database examined 21 144 propensity score (PS)-matched pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes with SGLT2i and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) treatment for assessing CV outcomes, and 19 951 PS-matched pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes with SGLT2i and DPP4i treatment for assessing kidney outcomes. Patients were followed until December 31, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from August 2021 to April 2022.

EXPOSURES

Newly stable SGLT2i or DPP4i use in 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Study outcomes were CV events including hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE: nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, and CV death), 4-point MACE (4P-MACE: HHF and 3P-MACE), and all-cause death, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). RMST and Cox modeling analyses were applied to estimate treatment effects on study outcomes.

RESULTS

After PS matching, the baseline patient characteristics were comparable between 21 144 patients with stable SGLT2i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.3 [10.7] years; 11 990 [56.7%] male) and 21 144 patients with stable DPP4i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.1 [11.6] years; 12 163 [57.5%] male) for assessing CV outcomes, and those were also comparable between 19 951 patients with stable SGLT2i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 58.1 [10.7] years; 11 231 [56.2%] male) and 19 951 patients with stable DPP4i use (eg, mean [SD] age: 57.9 [11.5] years; 11 340 [56.8%] male) for assessing kidney outcome. The 2-year difference in RMST between patients with SGLT2i use and patients with DPP4i use was 4.99 (95% CI, 3.56-6.42) days for HHF, 4.12 (95% CI, 2.72-5.52) days for 3P-MACE, 7.72 (95% CI, 5.83-9.61) days for 4P-MACE, 1.26 (95% CI, 0.47-2.04) days for MI, 2.70 (95% CI, 1.57-3.82) days for stroke, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.28-1.11) days for CV death, 6.05 (95% CI, 4.89-7.20) days for all-cause death, and 14.75 (95% CI, 12.99-16.52) days for CKD. Directions of hazard ratios from Cox modeling analyses were consistent with RMST estimates. No association was found between study treatment and the negative control outcome (dental visits for tooth care). Consistent results across sensitivity analyses using high-dimensional PS-matched and PS-weighting approaches supported the validity of primary analysis results. Largest difference in RMST of SGLT2i vs DPP4i use for HHF and CKD was found among patients with established heart failure (30.80 [95% CI, 5.08-56.51] days) and retinopathy (40.43 [95% CI, 31.74-49.13] days), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this comparative effectiveness study, RMST analysis was feasible for translating treatment effects into more clinical intuitive estimates and valuable for quantifying HTEs among diverse patients in routine clinical settings.

Challenges of modelling approaches for network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards to aid decision making: Application to a melanoma network

BACKGROUND

Synthesis of clinical effectiveness from multiple trials is a well-established component of decision-making. Time-to-event outcomes are often synthesised using the Cox proportional hazards model assuming a constant hazard ratio over time. However, with an increasing proportion of trials reporting treatment effects where hazard ratios vary over time and with differing lengths of follow-up across trials, alternative synthesis methods are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and contrast five modelling approaches for synthesis of time-to-event outcomes and provide guidance on key considerations for choosing between the modelling approaches.

METHODS

The Cox proportional hazards model and five other methods of estimating treatment effects from time-to-event outcomes, which relax the proportional hazards assumption, were applied to a network of melanoma trials reporting overall survival: restricted mean survival time, generalised gamma, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models.

RESULTS

All models fitted the melanoma network acceptably well. However, there were important differences in extrapolations of the survival curve and interpretability of the modelling constraints demonstrating the potential for different conclusions from different modelling approaches.

CONCLUSION

The restricted mean survival time, generalised gamma, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models can accommodate non-proportional hazards and differing lengths of trial follow-up within a network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes. We recommend that model choice is informed using available and relevant prior knowledge, model transparency, graphically comparing survival curves alongside observed data to aid consideration of the reliability of the survival estimates, and consideration of how the treatment effect estimates can be incorporated within a decision model.

The Role of Total Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is often associated with malnutrition and an inability to tolerate enteral feeding. Although total parenteral nutrition (TPN) can be lifesaving for patients with no other means of nutritional support, its use in the management of PC patients remains controversial. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of TPN on the overall survival of PC patients, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A total of 187 articles were screened; 10 were included in this review and eight were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled median overall survival of patients who received TPN was significantly higher than patients who did not receive TPN (p = 0.040). When only high-quality studies were included, a significant survival advantage was observed in PC patients receiving TPN (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients receiving chemotherapy demonstrated a significant survival benefit (p = 0.008) associated with the use of TPN. In conclusion, TPN may improve survival outcomes in PC patients. However, further studies are needed to conclude more definitively on the effect of TPN.

Multivariate meta-analysis model for the difference in restricted mean survival times

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes, the difference in restricted mean survival times (RMSTD) offers an absolute measure of the treatment effect on the time scale. Computation of the RMSTD relies on the choice of a time horizon, $\tau$. In a meta-analysis, varying follow-up durations may lead to the exclusion of RCTs with follow-up shorter than $\tau$. We introduce an individual patient data multivariate meta-analysis model for RMSTD estimated at multiple time horizons. We derived the within-trial covariance for the RMSTD enabling the synthesis of all data by borrowing strength from multiple time points. In a simulation study covering 60 scenarios, we compared the statistical performance of the proposed method to that of two univariate meta-analysis models, based on available data at each time point and based on predictions from flexible parametric models. Our multivariate model yields smaller mean squared error over univariate methods at all time points. We illustrate the method with a meta-analysis of five RCTs comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Over 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up, those treated by TAVR live 0.28 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.56], 0.46 (95% CI $-$0.08 to 1.01), and 0.79 (95% CI $-$0.43 to 2.02) months longer on average compared to those treated by surgery, respectively.

Individual patient data network meta-analysis using either restricted mean survival time difference or hazard ratios: is there a difference? A case study on locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinomas

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at applying the restricted mean survival time difference (rmstD) as an absolute outcome measure in a network meta-analysis and comparing the results with those obtained using hazard ratios (HR) from the individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) on the role of chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) recently published by the MAC-NPC collaborative group (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy [CT] in NPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty trials (5144 patients) comparing radiotherapy (RT) with or without CT in non-metastatic NPC were included. Treatments were grouped in seven categories: RT alone (RT), induction CT followed by RT (IC-RT), RT followed by adjuvant CT (RT-AC), IC followed by RT followed by AC (IC-RT-AC), concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), IC followed by CRT (IC-CRT), and CRT followed by AC (CRT-AC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and locoregional control. The rmstD was estimated at t* = 10 years in each trial. Random-effect frequentist NMA models were applied. P score was used to rank treatments. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were evaluated.

RESULTS

The three treatments that had the highest effect on OS with rmstD were CRT-AC, IC-CRT, and CRT (respective P scores of 92%, 72%, and 64%) compared to CRT-AC, CRT, and IC-CRT when using HR (respective P scores of 96%, 71%, and 63%). Of the 32 HR and rmstD analyzed, 5 had a different interpretation, 3 with a direction change (different direction of treatment effect) and 2 with a change in significance (same direction but a change in statistical significance). Results for secondary endpoints were overall in agreement.

CONCLUSION

The use of either HR or rmstD impacts the results of NMA. Given the sensitivity of HR to non-proportional hazards, this finding could have implications in terms of meta-analysis methodology.

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials.

METHODS

For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

FINDINGS

Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8).

INTERPRETATION

This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested.

FUNDING

Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

[New applications for individual participant data meta-analyses of randomized trials]

Meta-analyses of randomized trials using individual-participant data, which represent the highest level of evidence for the evaluation of a treatment effect, are now used in different contexts in clinical research. This article aims at reviewing some of these new applications. Meta-analyses are increasingly used in economic evaluation, which implies new measure outcomes of the treatment effect, as well as in biomarkers evaluations thanks to their higher statistical power and the possibility to validate findings on independent data. This article also considers the perspectives opened up by new data sources, such as randomized trials registers, and data sharing policies.

Impact of thoracic radiotherapy timing in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: usefulness of the individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy (CT) combined with radiotherapy is the standard treatment of 'limited-stage' small-cell lung cancer. However, controversy persists over the optimal timing of thoracic radiotherapy and CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of individual patient data in randomized trials comparing earlier versus later radiotherapy, or shorter versus longer radiotherapy duration, as defined in each trial. We combined the results from trials using the stratified log-rank test to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Twelve trials with 2668 patients were eligible. Data from nine trials comprising 2305 patients were available for analysis. The median follow-up was 10 years. When all trials were analysed together, 'earlier or shorter' versus 'later or longer' thoracic radiotherapy did not affect overall survival. However, the HR for overall survival was significantly in favour of 'earlier or shorter' radiotherapy among trials with a similar proportion of patients who were compliant with CT (defined as having received 100% or more of the planned CT cycles) in both arms (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91), and in favour of 'later or longer' radiotherapy among trials with different rates of CT compliance (HR 1.19, 1.05-1.34, interaction test, P < 0.0001). The absolute gain between 'earlier or shorter' versus 'later or longer' thoracic radiotherapy in 5-year overall survival for similar and for different CT compliance trials was 7.7% (95% CI 2.6-12.8%) and -2.2% (-5.8% to 1.4%), respectively. However, 'earlier or shorter' thoracic radiotherapy was associated with a higher incidence of severe acute oesophagitis than 'later or longer' radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

'Earlier or shorter' delivery of thoracic radiotherapy with planned CT significantly improves 5-year overall survival at the expense of more acute toxicity, especially oesophagitis.

Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background

The difference in restricted mean survival time (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$\end{document}rmstDt∗), the area between two survival curves up to time horizon \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {t}^{\ast } $$\end{document}t∗, is often used in cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. A challenge in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses is to account for the trial effect. We aimed at comparing different methods to estimate the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$\end{document}rmstDt∗ from an IPD meta-analysis.

Methods

We compared four methods: the area between Kaplan-Meier curves (experimental vs. control arm) ignoring the trial effect (Naïve Kaplan-Meier); the area between Peto curves computed at quintiles of event times (Peto-quintile); the weighted average of the areas between either trial-specific Kaplan-Meier curves (Pooled Kaplan-Meier) or trial-specific exponential curves (Pooled Exponential). In a simulation study, we varied the between-trial heterogeneity for the baseline hazard and for the treatment effect (possibly correlated), the overall treatment effect, the time horizon \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {t}^{\ast } $$\end{document}t∗, the number of trials and of patients, the use of fixed or DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, and the proportionality of hazards. We compared the methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard errors. We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) and its updated version MAC-NPC2 for illustration that included respectively 1,975 and 5,028 patients in 11 and 23 comparisons.

Results

The Naïve Kaplan-Meier method was unbiased, whereas the Pooled Exponential and, to a much lesser extent, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier methods showed a bias with non-proportional hazards. The Peto-quintile method underestimated the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$\end{document}rmstDt∗, except with non-proportional hazards at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {t}^{\ast } $$\end{document}t∗= 5 years. In the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, all methods except the Pooled Kaplan-Meier and the Pooled Exponential with DerSimonian-Laird random effects underestimated the standard error of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast}\right) $$\end{document}rmstDt∗. Overall, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects formed the best compromise in terms of bias and variance. The \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ rmstD\left({t}^{\ast },=,10,\kern0.5em ,\mathrm{years}\right) $$\end{document}rmstDt∗=10years estimated with the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method was 0.49 years (95 % CI: [−0.06;1.03], p = 0.08) when comparing radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in the MAC-NPC and 0.59 years (95 % CI: [0.34;0.84], p < 0.0001) in the MAC-NPC2.

Conclusions

We recommend the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects to estimate the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual-patient data meta-analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0137-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.