Among the few approved therapies for advanced renal cell cancer, Sunitinib is a common active comparator in most trials. The pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib and nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib combination therapies have shown better efficacy compared to Sunitinib in different studies but there is no direct head-to-head study between the two combination therapies. Network Meta Analysis is employed to compare the treatments indirectly. Usually, the aggregate Hazard ratio-based approach and endpoints are used in Network Meta Analysis. Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison has been reported for checking these two sets of combination therapies. Proportionality assumption violation is an issue with using Cox proportional hazard ratio while Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison is not free of bias. We therefore employ pseudo-Individual patient level data generated from digitized survival curves and apply a new prior near-ignorance Dirichlet Process. We then compare the results of cox-regression based method and a Bayesian approach based on near ignorance imprecise prior Dirichlet Process with Pseudo-IPD based Network Meta Analysis. Based on both the Cox-regression and pseudo-IPD based-approaches, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups based on efficacy. Both the combination therapies perform significantly better than Sunitinib arm in term of efficacy when using the Overall Survival and Progression Free Survival endpoints. Since the Bayesian prior near-ignorance Dirichlet Process based method does not assume proportionality, it is a better choice. In the current work, a R software-based analysis is done with an example dataset to compare and present the results from the two methods.
Keywords
Dirichlet Process, Network Meta Analysis, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Progression Free Survival, Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison, Pseudo-Individual Patient Data.
U. Capitanio et al., “Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma,” European Urology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 74–84, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.036.
T. K. Choueiri and R. J. Motzer, “Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 376, no. 4, pp. 354–366, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1056/nejmra1601333.
S. Li, J. Li, L. Peng, Y. Li, and X. Wan, “Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 12, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.736860.
D. Ding et al., “Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S.,” The Oncologist, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. e290–e297, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1002/onco.13522.
B. A. McGregor et al., “Efficacy outcomes of nivolumab + cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab + axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 39, no. 15_suppl, pp. 4578–4578, May 2021, doi: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.4578.
X. Du et al., “Comparison of the flexible parametric survival model and Cox model in estimating Markov transition probabilities using real-world data,” PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 8, p. e0200807, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200807.
E. L. Kaplan and P. Meier, “Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 53, no. 282, pp. 457–481, Jun. 1958, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452.
M. Schemper, “Cox Analysis of Survival Data with Non-Proportional Hazard Functions,” The Statistician, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 455, 1992, doi: 10.2307/2349009.
E.T. Lee, J.Wang, “Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis,” vol. 476. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, NJ, 2003.
P. A. Apellániz, J. Parras, and S. Zazo, “Leveraging the variational Bayes autoencoder for survival analysis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-76047-z.
P. Guyot, A. Ades, M. J. Ouwens, and N. J. Welton, “Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2012, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9.
V. Susarla and J. Van Ryzin, “Nonparametric Bayesian Estimation of Survival Curves from Incomplete Observations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 71, no. 356, pp. 897–902, Dec. 1976, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480966.
F. Mangili, A. Benavoli, C. P. de Campos, and M. Zaffalon, “Reliable survival analysis based on the Dirichlet process,” Biometrical Journal, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1002–1019, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1002/bimj.201500062.
R. Scharlau, “Metrical Shellings of Simplicial Complexes,” European Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 265–269, Sep. 1985, doi: 10.1016/s0195-6698(85)80037-8.
M. Taboga, “Lectures on Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics,” CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, California, USA, 2017.
K. W. Ng, G. Tian, and M. Tang, “Dirichlet and Related Distributions,” Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1002/9781119995784.
K. Lange, “Applications of the Dirichlet distribution to forensic match probabilities,” Genetica, vol. 96, no. 1–2, pp. 107–117, Jun. 1995, doi: 10.1007/bf01441156.
B.A. Frigyik, A. Kapila, M.R Gupta, “Introduction to the dirichlet distribution and related processes,” department of electrical engineering, university of washignton. Technical repor t, UWEETR-2010-0006, 2010.
T. S. Ferguson, “Prior Distributions on Spaces of Probability Measures,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 2, no. 4, Jul. 1974, doi: 10.1214/aos/1176342752.
F. Leisen, A. Lijoi, and D. Spanó, “A vector of Dirichlet processes,” Electronic Journal of Statistics, vol. 7, no. none, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1214/12-ejs764.
A. Jara, “Theory and computations for the Dirichlet process and related models: An overview,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 81, pp. 128–146, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2016.11.008.
R.H. Hijazi, R.W Jernigan, “Modelling compositional data using Dirichlet regression models,” Journal of Applied Probability & Statistics 4(1), 77–91, 2009.
H. C. Bucher, G. H. Guyatt, L. E. Griffith, and S. D. Walter, “The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 683–691, Jun. 1997, doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00049-8.
CRediT Author Statement
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows:
Conceptualization: Amritendu Bhattacharya, Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
Methodology: Amritendu Bhattacharya and Ravilisetty Revathi;
Software: Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
Data Curation: Amritendu Bhattacharya and Ravilisetty Revathi;
Writing- Original Draft Preparation: Amritendu Bhattacharya, Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
Visualization: Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
Investigation: Amritendu Bhattacharya and Ravilisetty Revathi;
Supervision: Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
Validation: Ravilisetty Revathi;
Writing- Reviewing and Editing: Amritendu Bhattacharya, Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu;
All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to the reviewers for nice comments on the manuscript.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Author information
Contributions
All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ravilisetty Revathi
School of Sciences, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Cite this article
Amritendu Bhattacharya, Ravilisetty Revathi and Boya Venkatesu, “Bayesian Network Meta Analysis of Survival Data Using a Near Ignorance Dirichlet Process with Pseudo IPD”, Journal of Machine and Computing, pp. 1113-1123, April 2025, doi: 10.53759/7669/jmc202505088.
