Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Modeling therapy sequence for advanced cancer: A microsimulation approach leveraging Electronic Health Record data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Replaying patients' recorded EHR transitions until censoring, then completing the tail with a multi-state model, estimates cancer therapy sequence costs and QALYs more accurately than standard Markov cohort models.

desk verdict A solid methodological contribution with an honest synthetic validation, but the headline coverage result rests on independent censoring that real EHR data will often violate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13234 v2 pith:N7X7OPJD submitted 2024-12-17 q-bio.QM

Elizabeth A. Handorf , J. Robert Beck , Daniel M. Geynisman This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QM
keywords microsimulationtherapysequencecost-effectivenessanalysismulti-statemodelselectronichealthrecordsinverseprobabilitytreatmentweightingadvancedcancerquality-adjustedlifeyears
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that electronic health records contain enough longitudinal information to support cost-effectiveness modeling of multi-line cancer therapy sequences, even though EHRs lack costs and quality-of-life measures. It proposes two microsimulation strategies: one that generates transitions from fitted multi-state survival models, and one that replays each patient's observed transition times until censoring and then switches to model-based probabilities. In synthetic datasets built to mimic EHR structure with correlated within-patient outcomes, the observed-trajectory version usually produced confidence intervals that covered the true cost and QALY differences, while the multi-state version was often biased. The authors conclude that both microsimulation methods outperform a homogeneous Markov cohort approach and that patient-level EHR data should be considered for therapy-sequence cost-effectiveness studies. A bladder-cancer demonstration yields a positive net monetary benefit for cisplatin-based first-line therapy followed by immunotherapy at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

What carries the argument

The central object is a discrete-time health-state transition model with states Line 1, Line 2, Extensive Disease, and Death, run as a patient-level microsimulation. Two engines drive it: an mstate engine using Cox proportional-hazards multi-state models, which estimate hazards for each possible transition between health states, to compute subject- and time-specific transition probabilities, and a trajectory engine that replays each patient's observed EHR transition times until censoring and then uses the multi-state model for the tail. Propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting with average treatment effect weights rebalances the treatment arms, and bootstrap resampling of the cohort with different random seeds supplies standard errors that include both population and simulation variability.

What would settle it

Create a simulated dataset where patients are censored exactly when they get sicker or enter hospice, then check whether the trajectory method's intervals still cover the true costs and quality-adjusted survival; if they miss often, the method depends on censoring being unrelated to prognosis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that observed EHR trajectories carry more information about therapy sequence outcomes than fitted transition probabilities alone. The trajectory method forces each simulated patient to follow their recorded sequence of health states until censoring, setting the probability of the observed transition to 1 and all others to 0, then completes the remainder of follow-up with transition probabilities from the multi-state model. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with average treatment effect weights balances the non-randomized treatment arms, and bootstrap resampling of the cohort with different random seeds supplies standard errors that include both population and simulation variability. In nine synthetic scenarios with copula-induced within-patient correlation, the trajectory method mostly produced confidence intervals that covered the known true costs, quality-adjusted life years, and net monetary benefit, while the multi-state method frequently did not; both methods substantially outperformed a homogeneous Markov cohort model. The paper concludes that patient-level EHR-based data should inform cost-effectiveness models of therapy sequence when available.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that patients who stop being followed in the EHR would have had the same future transitions as similar patients who stay, so the model's after-censoring tail is not biased by the reasons they left.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Health economists can estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative therapy sequences without randomized sequence trials, using EHR longitudinal data plus external cost and utility inputs.
  • The observed-trajectory method should be preferred over the multi-state model method for sequence questions when EHR progression data are available, because it was more accurate in the synthetic evaluation.
  • Homogeneous Markov cohort models are likely to underestimate costs and effects for sequence questions; the paper's synthetic results show both microsimulation methods improve on them.
  • The bladder cancer demonstration implies that cisplatin/gemcitabine followed by immunotherapy is cost-effective at $100,000 per QALY compared with carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by immunotherapy, under both modeling approaches.
  • Researchers can attach external cost, utility, and adverse-event values to health states, so the method works even though EHRs do not record those measures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If extended beyond the paper, the trajectory method's reliance on non-informative censoring means real-world applications should test sensitivity to informative censoring, such as patients leaving the EHR when they enter hospice or transfer care.
  • A neighbouring problem the method could address is comparative effectiveness of treatment sequences in other chronic diseases with ordered lines of therapy recorded in EHRs, such as heart failure or multiple sclerosis.
  • A testable extension would be to swap the multi-state model tail for cause-specific hazards or flexible parametric models; because the mstate approach alone was biased even under proportional hazards, the tail's specification is the likeliest source of residual bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops two microsimulation approaches for estimating costs, QALYs, and net monetary benefit of cancer therapy sequences from EHR data: a multi-state model (mstate) approach that uses fitted transition probabilities, and a trajectory approach that uses each patient's observed transitions until censoring and then switches to mstate transition probabilities. Both methods are evaluated in synthetic EHR-like datasets generated with copula-based within-patient dependence and known true outcomes, and are applied to a Flatiron Health bladder cancer cohort comparing cisplatin/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by immunotherapy. The paper reports that the trajectory approach mostly produced confidence intervals covering true values, that the mstate approach was biased, and that both outperform a homogeneous Markov cohort model.

Significance. If the trajectory method is valid, it provides a practical template for using longitudinal EHR data in cost-effectiveness analyses of treatment sequences when randomized sequence trials are unavailable, with the important advantage of preserving within-patient dependence in observed transitions. The paper's strengths include publicly available code, a synthetic evaluation design with known truth, careful calibration against IPTW survival curves, and incorporation of external utilities, costs, and adverse-event rates. The copula-based simulation framework is a useful stress test for within-patient correlation. However, the central coverage claim is not yet established for realistic EHR settings because informative censoring is not tested, and the base-case Clayton-copula results show the trajectory method missing the true cost and effect differences.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 2 (Clayton row)] In the base-case Clayton copula scenario, the trajectory method's 95% confidence intervals for the cost difference (-$18,208 to $6,988) and the effect difference (0.01; CI -0.08 to 0.11) exclude the true values ($10,503 and 0.15, respectively). Since Clayton is described in Section 3.1 as the base case for the synthetic evaluation, this is not a peripheral scenario, and it directly weakens the Abstract's claim that the trajectory approach 'mostly produced confidence intervals that covered known values.' Please provide a per-scenario coverage summary and either restrict the claim to the scenarios where coverage holds or explain why the method fails in the very setting (within-patient dependence) it was designed to capture.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The trajectory method's validity depends on the assumption that censoring is non-informative conditional on covariates and prior transitions, because after censoring the simulation switches to multi-state-model transition probabilities. The synthetic evaluation in Section 3.1 draws censoring times from a uniform distribution independent of outcomes, so the coverage results in Table 2 represent a best case. In EHR data, censoring can be driven by clinical deterioration, hospice referral, or transfer of care, which are correlated with prognosis. The paper neither tests this mechanism nor reports sensitivity analyses under outcome-dependent censoring. Please add a simulation scenario with censoring times dependent on prognosis (or on latent frailty) and show the trajectory method's coverage, or provide a formal theoretical argument that the IPTW weighting and the observed-trajectory construction account for informative censoring. Without this, the central claim that the trajectory approach is well-calibrated in real EHR data is not established.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 3.2] The Discussion states 'we did not formally assess coverage,' yet the Abstract and Section 3.2 claim that the trajectory approach 'mostly produced confidence intervals that covered known values.' Because only one synthetic dataset is generated per scenario, the assessment is based on a single interval per scenario rather than a repeated-sampling coverage rate. Please clarify the distinction and, if a coverage claim is intended, report a formal coverage analysis based on repeated synthetic datasets; otherwise temper the language in the Abstract and Results to reflect the informal nature of the comparison.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 2 (small-sample, log-logistic, log-normal rows)] In several plausible scenarios, both microsimulation methods produce cost and effect differences with the wrong sign: for example, in the small-sample (Clayton) scenario, the trajectory method estimates ΔEffect = -0.07 (CI -0.24 to 0.10) against a true value of 0.16, and in the log-normal (Clayton) scenario it estimates ΔCost = -$11,573 (CI -$26,148 to $3,003) against a true value of $4,250. The Discussion acknowledges this bias, but the Conclusions state that both methods 'offer superior performance to a homogeneous Markov cohort approach,' which is true only relative to a very poor comparator. Please qualify the recommendation by specifying the conditions under which the trajectory method is reliable (e.g., sample size, survival distribution shape, and copula structure), since the current framing overstates the method's general applicability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, equation] The multi-state Cox model equation contains the string '𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒' where the exponential function is intended; please replace it with the correct mathematical notation for exp().
  2. [Section 3.1, second paragraph] The text says 'We fit Weibull models with 6 different copula structures: Independence, Clayton, Gaussian compound symmetric, Gaussian unstructured, T compound symmetric, T unstructured.' Independence is not a copula structure; please reword to distinguish the independence case from the five copula models.
  3. [Section 2.2, trajectory bootstrap] The description of the bootstrap for the trajectory approach says patients are resampled within each treatment arm and the microsimulation is run with varying seeds, but it does not state whether the propensity-score model is refit in each bootstrap replicate. Please clarify; if the IPTW weights are not recomputed, the bootstrap will understate uncertainty by ignoring estimation error in the weights.
  4. [Section 4, Table 3] Table 3 is dense and difficult to parse, especially the columns comparing the full cohort with the treatment-sequence subgroup; consider reformatting or splitting the table for readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Trajectory-method calibration is partly self-definitional, but the synthetic 'true'-value benchmark and external cost/utility inputs keep the central claims non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2 'Observed patient trajectories' and Section 3.2 'Results'; Table 1/Figure 2]
    "We propose to use the observed patient transition times until censoring occurs. This can be simply done in the microsimulation model by setting all of a patient’s transition probabilities to 0 unless a particular transition is observed to occur; if so, we set that probability to 1. After censoring occurs, we can use the estimated transition probabilities obtained using the multi-state model, as described above. ..."

    For the trajectory method, the simulated survival path up to censoring is literally the patient's observed transitions replayed with probabilities 0/1, so the resulting overall survival curve is constructed from the same observed event times used to draw the IPTW reference curve. Calling the close agreement 'calibration' is therefore an in-sample, partly definitional check rather than an out-of-sample prediction. This does not undermine the paper's main evidence: Table 2 compares both methods against 'true' values from separately generated no-censoring full-cohort synthetic datasets, and the NMB calculations use external costs and utilities, not values fitted to the target outcome.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The mstate microsimulation fits Cox multi-state models and simulates forward; the trajectory microsimulation re-uses observed transitions until censoring and then switches to the mstate tail. The synthetic evaluation creates 'true' cost/QALY/NMB values from separate full-cohort datasets generated independently of the two estimation methods, so the coverage claims in Table 2 are genuine out-of-sample benchmarks. Costs, utilities, and adverse-event rates in the bladder example are taken from external published sources and CMS pricing, not estimated to force the NMB result. The only circularity-adjacent element is the calibration comparison for the trajectory approach, which is close to self-definitional because the method replays observed transitions; this is a minor in-sample validation issue, not the load-bearing claim. Self-citations (refs 3, 14) appear only as background and are not used to justify the method's assumptions. Overall score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The 'composite adverse event' is an aggregation of real events, not a new postulated entity. The free parameters listed are external CEA inputs from the literature; the central method itself has no fitted parameters beyond standard model estimation, but the clinical NMB demonstration depends on these inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Health state utility weights = 0.668, 0.718, 0.627, 0.60, 0.559, 0.52
    External utilities from cited literature (Lin, Taarnhøj, Patterson, Sarfaty) used to compute QALYs. They are chosen inputs, not fitted to the target data, and the NMB result depends on them (Table 4).
  • Adverse event probabilities = 0.691, 0.60, 0.15
    Grade 3/4 AE probabilities for carbo/gem, cis/gem, and IO from Dogliotti and Bellmunt; used to adjust QALYs and AE costs in the bladder example.
  • Monthly costs and AE costs = carbo $228.69, cis $223.03, gem $448.89, IO $15,454.08, AE costs $10,916/$8,497, disease management $2,516/$5,835.58
    Unit costs from CMS and the literature, updated to 2024 dollars using medical CPI; these are hand-selected external inputs affecting the cost difference.
  • Discount rate = 3% per year
    Standard CEA practice; chosen, not fitted.
  • Time horizon = 60 months
    Microsimulation run for 5 years; chosen by the authors and affects total costs and QALYs.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cox proportional hazards assumption for all state-to-state transitions
    Section 2.1 states that transition hazards are Cox PH models. The log-normal and log-logistic synthetic scenarios violate this and cause mstate calibration failure, so the central method depends on PH.
  • domain assumption Conditional exchangeability after IPTW (no unmeasured confounding)
    Section 2.2 uses propensity-score weighting to balance observed covariates; the cis versus carbo sequence comparison is interpreted causally only if all confounders are measured.
  • domain assumption Non-informative censoring conditional on covariates and prior transitions
    Section 2.2 switches from observed trajectories to model-based probabilities after censoring; informative censoring would bias the trajectory method.
  • domain assumption EHR progression events extracted via abstraction are accurate
    Section 4 says progression was coded via abstraction of clinical notes; the Discussion notes this may not be available or reliable in other EHRs.
  • ad hoc to paper Copula-based synthetic data represent real EHR within-patient dependence
    Section 3.1 generates synthetic data with Clayton, Gaussian, and T copulas using parameters from the Flatiron cohort; the validation conclusions are only as strong as this representativeness.
  • domain assumption External utility, cost, and AE estimates apply to the Flatiron cohort
    Section 4 and Table 4 combine external literature values with the EHR cohort; no sensitivity analysis is conducted to test this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling therapy sequence for advanced cancer: A microsimulation approach leveraging Electronic Health Record data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7X7OPJD

@misc{pith2026241213234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling therapy sequence for advanced cancer: A microsimulation approach leveraging Electronic Health Record data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7X7OPJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13234}
}
abstract

Many patients with advanced cancers undergo multiple lines of treatment. We develop methods for estimating quality-adjusted outcomes and cost-effectiveness of therapy sequences, informed by patient-level longitudinal data from Electronic Health Records (EHRs). We develop microsimulation models with a discrete-time health-state transition framework and propose two methods: one using multi-state models to estimate transition probabilities, and one using observed patient trajectories through the health states. We use bootstrap resampling to estimate standard errors. We create synthetic EHR-like datasets to evaluate these methods where within-patient transition times depend on covariates and a copula generator, and compare with Markov cohort models. We demonstrate these methods in two treatment sequences for advanced bladder cancer (cisplatin or carboplatin-based therapy followed by immunotherapy), incorporating external information on costs, utilities, and expected adverse event. Both methods produced well-calibrated overall survivals, although the trajectory approach was often superior. The multi-state model approach generated lower standard errors but was biased when compared to known results from the synthetic datasets. The observed trajectory approach mostly produced confidence intervals that covered known values. In the bladder cancer example, both methods result in a Net Monetary Benefit (NMB)>0 for the cisplatin-based treatment sequence with a willingness to pay of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Both microsimulation methods produce well-calibrated results and offer superior performance to a homogeneous Markov cohort approach when studying therapy sequence. Where available, patient level EHR-based data should be considered to inform cost-effectiveness models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model structure We use a microsimulation framework for this analysis, wherein we simulate individual patient trajectories through the model. Code use to implement our methods is available at https://github.com/BethHandorf/Therapy_sequence_EHR . 2.1 Multi-state modeling Multi-state models are a useful class of models for frameworks containing multiple health states, and competing or intermediate events.18 The model f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model structure applied to bladder cancer dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020

    Gloy V , Schmitt AM, Düblin P , et al. The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020. Int J Cancer. 2023;152(12):2474-2484. doi:10.1002/ijc.34473

    work page doi:10.1002/ijc.34473

  2. [2]

    Cancer statistics, 2022

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022;72(1):7-33. doi:10.3322/caac.21708

    doi:10.3322/caac.21708 2022

  3. [3]

    Influence of first-line chemotherapy regimen on survival outcomes of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors

    Miron B, Handorf E, Zarrabi K, et al. Influence of first-line chemotherapy regimen on survival outcomes of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. Urol Oncol. 2022;40(10):454.e9-454.e16. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.05.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.05.028 2022

  4. [4]

    Cost- Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma

    Kohn CG, Zeichner SB, Chen Q, Montero AJ, Goldstein DA, Flowers CR. Cost- Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;35(11):1194. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.6336

    work page doi:10.1200/jco.2016.69.6336 2017

  5. [5]

    Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation– positive non–small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness

    Hirsh V , Singh J. Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation– positive non–small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy: AJHP. 2020;77(18):1466. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa197

    work page doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa197 2020

  6. [6]

    Zhao M, Shao T, Chi Z, Tang W. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 treatment paths, seven first-line and three second-line treatments for Chinese patients with advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A sequential model. Front Public Health. 2023;11. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1051484

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States

    Diaby V , Adunlin G, Ali AA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):187-196. doi:10.1007/s10549-016-3978-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10549-016-3978-6 2016

  8. [8]

    A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan

    Diaby V , Alqhtani H, van Boemmel-Wegmann S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan. Breast. 2020;49:141-148. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2019.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.breast.2019.11.012 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Sequences of the Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Wild-Type KRAS Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

    Riesco-Martínez MC, Berry SR, Ko YJ, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Sequences of the Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Wild-Type KRAS Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(6):e710-723. doi:10.1200/JOP .2015.008730

    2016

  2. [10]

    State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3

    Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Value in Health. 2012;15(6):812-820. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Microsimulation modeling for health decision sciences using R: a tutorial

    Krijkamp EM, Alarid-Escudero F , Enns EA, Jalal HJ, Hunink MM, Pechlivanoglou P . Microsimulation modeling for health decision sciences using R: a tutorial. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2018;38(3):400. doi:10.11...

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanoma

    Gibson EJ, Begum N, Koblbauer I, et al. Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanoma. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019;22(6):531-544. doi:10.1080/13696998.2019.1569446

    2019

  5. [13]

    A Brief, Global History of Microsimulation Models in Health: Past Applications, Lessons Learned and Future Directions

    Schofield DJ, Zeppel MJB, Tan O, Lymer S, Cunich MM, Shrestha RN. A Brief, Global History of Microsimulation Models in Health: Past Applications, Lessons Learned and Future Directions. IJM. 2017;11(1):97-142. doi:10.34196/ijm.00175

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer

    Handorf EA, Beck JR, Correa A, Ramamurthy C, Geynisman DM. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Med Decis Making. 2023;43(7-8):949-960. doi:10.1177/0272989X231201621

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma

    Galsky MD, Chen GJ, Oh WK, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23(2):406-410. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr156

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Comparison of Population Characteristics in Real-World Clinical Oncology Databases in the US: Flatiron Health, SEER, and NPCR

    Ma X, Long L, Moon S, Adamson BJS, Baxi SS. Comparison of Population Characteristics in Real-World Clinical Oncology Databases in the US: Flatiron Health, SEER, and NPCR. Published online June 7, 2023:2020.03.16.20037143. doi:10.1101/2020.03.16.20037143

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research

    Birnbaum B, Nussbaum N, Seidl-Rathkopf K, et al. Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research. Published online January 13, 2020. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2001.09765

    2020 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi- state models

    Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi- state models. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(11):2389-2430. doi:10.1002/sim.2712

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    mstate: An R Package for the Analysis of Competing Risks and Multi-State Models

    Wreede LC de, Fiocco M, Putter H. mstate: An R Package for the Analysis of Competing Risks and Multi-State Models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2011;38:1-30. doi:10.18637/jss.v038.i07

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

    Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Differences in target estimands between different propensity score- based weights

    Austin PC. Differences in target estimands between different propensity score- based weights. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023;32(10):1103-1112. doi:10.1002/pds.5639

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Propensity score estimation: machine learning and classification methods as alternatives to logistic regression

    Westreich D, Lessler J, Funk MJ. Propensity score estimation: machine learning and classification methods as alternatives to logistic regression. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2010;63(8):826. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.020

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    A simulation procedure based on copulas to generate clustered multi-state survival data

    Rotolo F , Legrand C, Van Keilegom I. A simulation procedure based on copulas to generate clustered multi-state survival data. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2013;109(3):305-312. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.09.003

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Modelling Dependence with Copulas in R | R-bloggers

    Alice M. Modelling Dependence with Copulas in R | R-bloggers. October 18, 2015. Accessed November 12, 2024. https://www.r-bloggers.com/2015/10/modelling- dependence-with-copulas-in-r/

    2015

  17. [25]

    Markov Models and Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Applications in Medical Research

    Komorowski M, Raffa J. Markov Models and Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Applications in Medical Research. In: MIT Critical Data, ed. Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records. Springer International Publishing; 2016:351-367. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43742-2_24

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Analysis of a Real-World Progression Variable and Related Endpoints for Patients with Five Different Cancer Types

    Torres AZ, Nussbaum NC, Parrinello CM, et al. Analysis of a Real-World Progression Variable and Related Endpoints for Patients with Five Different Cancer Types. Adv Ther. 2022;39(6):2831-2849. doi:10.1007/s12325-022-02091-8

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Avelumab Maintenance Treatment After First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma–A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    Lin D, Luo S, Lin S, et al. Avelumab Maintenance Treatment After First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma–A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2023;21(1):8-15. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2022.10.001

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Quality of life in bladder cancer patients receiving medical oncological treatment; a systematic review of the literature

    Taarnhøj GA, Johansen C, Pappot H. Quality of life in bladder cancer patients receiving medical oncological treatment; a systematic review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):20. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-1077-6

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin- based Therapy

    Patterson K, Prabhu V , Xu R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin- based Therapy. European Urology Oncology. 2019;2(5):565-571. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.009

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab in Second-line Advanced Bladder Cancer

    Sarfaty M, Hall PS, Chan KKW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab in Second-line Advanced Bladder Cancer. European Urology. 2018;74(1):57-62. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.006

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Dogliotti L, Cartenì G, Siena S, et al. Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin versus Gemcitabine plus Carboplatin as First-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelium: Results of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial. European Urology. 2007;52(1):134-141. doi:10.1016...

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

    Bellmunt J, Wit R de, Vaughn DJ, et al. Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;376(11):1015-

    2017

  25. [33]

    Accessed November 7, 2024

    ASP Pricing Files | CMS. Accessed November 7, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/part-b-drugs/asp-pricing-files

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hale O, Patterson K, Lai Y , et al. Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab versus Carboplatin-based Chemotherapy as First-line Treatment of PD-L1-positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Ineligible for Cisplatin-based Therapy in the United States. Clin Genitou...

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    The cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy or atezolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma in the United States

    Slater RL, Lai Y , Zhong Y , et al. The cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy or atezolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2020;23(9):967-977. doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.1770261

    2020

  28. [36]

    Using Electronic Health Records to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review

    Feng C, Le D, McCoy AB. Using Electronic Health Records to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2019;10(1):123. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677738

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Automated Identification of Patients With Immune-Related Adverse Events From Clinical Notes Using Word Embedding and Machine Learning

    Gupta S, Belouali A, Shah NJ, Atkins MB, Madhavan S. Automated Identification of Patients With Immune-Related Adverse Events From Clinical Notes Using Word Embedding and Machine Learning. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2021;5:CCI.20.00109. doi:10.1200/CCI.20.00109

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

    O’Mahony JF , Newall AT, Rosmalen J van. Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(12):1255. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0309-4

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk

    Fine JP , Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94(446):496-509. doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144

    1999

  32. [40]

    Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models to simultaneously estimate the absolute risk of different event types: Cumulative total failure probability may exceed 1

    Austin PC, Steyerberg EW, Putter H. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models to simultaneously estimate the absolute risk of different event types: Cumulative total failure probability may exceed 1. Stat Med. 2021;40(19):4200-4212. doi:10.1002/sim.9023

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Bayesian, and Non-Bayesian, Cause-Specific Competing-Risk Analysis for Parametric and Nonparametric Survival Functions: The R Package CFC

    Mahani AS, Sharabiani MTA. Bayesian, and Non-Bayesian, Cause-Specific Competing-Risk Analysis for Parametric and Nonparametric Survival Functions: The R Package CFC. Journal of Statistical Software. 2019;89:1-29. doi:10.18637/jss.v089.i09

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Performance of a Machine Learning Algorithm Using Electronic Health Record Data to Identify and Estimate Survival in a Longitudinal Cohort of Patients With Lung Cancer

    Yuan Q, Cai T, Hong C, et al. Performance of a Machine Learning Algorithm Using Electronic Health Record Data to Identify and Estimate Survival in a Longitudinal Cohort of Patients With Lung Cancer. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114723. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14723 ...

    2021

  35. [1026]

    doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1613683

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.