data&donuts
  • Data & Donuts (thinky thoughts)
  • COLLABORATor
  • Data talks, people mumble
  • Cancer: The Brand
  • Time to make the donuts...
  • donuts (quick nibbles)
  • Tools for writers and soon-to-be writers
  • datamonger.health
  • The "How" of Data Fluency

CANCER: THE BRAND

Support vs. illumination--how are we using statistics?

7/5/2019

 
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for illumination--Andrew Lang, Scottish poet.
I am not a statistician. Having said that, I have on the other hand, taken multiple higher level courses in statistics over the years. I attend statistical conferences, workshops, and do a lot of independent reading in biostatistics, medical statistics, and multivariate analysis. I would argue the fact that this is perhaps more than the targeted readers of our most esteemed medical journals--or at least on par.

But I am often left scratching my head. In workshops, after a proper visualization history and priming I begin with a relatively simple graphic. An enthusiastic volunteer will often comply with my request for a headline for the graphic. The sort of headline we would like to see in a clinical journal not necessarily in digital or print journalism at large.

I would argue--based on dozens of data literacy in healthcare workshops--this is where we are losing our audiences. Complex curves and obtuse statistical models are not communicating effectively in the absence of context. Often, authors report intent-to-treat analysis but a granular examination of data describes censuring of data (the measured event doesn’t happen while the subject is still being monitored)--did they die or drop out of the trial?

​Why do I mention this? More than once I have raised my hand at international statistical conferences asking who the target audience is for the messages they are hoping to deliver. Esoteric phrases that include terms like heteroscedasticity, eigenvalues, or the relevance of long-rank stratification without explanation or clarification continue to isolate the importance of numeracy.

I am like you. I read the clinical literature especially when something highly anticipated is reported. You might be surprised that although there is no shortage of buzz around immuno-onocology drugs we have none that report benefit over standard of care or placebo based on overall survival. Benefit has been demonstrated in select patients with respect to progression-free survival but I would say there is much we don't know about patient selection, durable effects, and how to translate the findings.
Picture
BACKGROUND
An earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial showed that the addition of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor to endocrine therapy provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than endocrine therapy alone in premenopausal or perimenopausal patients with advanced hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified interim analysis of the key secondary end point of overall survival.
As a long-time reader/listener of Vinay Prasad--most recently his podcast Plenary Session has been quite illuminating when interrogating the methodology of complex speciality drugs in oncology. Although I urge you to listen to the entire podcast--it is over 2 hours--I have pulled a few salient questions for consideration.

The point of randomized clinical trials is to examine if investigational drugs are better than currently available drug regimens before, during, and after the clinical trial. An interesting point observed during the podcast questioned the number of patients in both active and control arm that appear to not have been assigned subsequent therapy.

The methodology mentions intent to treat populations but it isn't clear (at least to me) if all patients were included in the analyses.

I have included the Kaplan-Meir curves and forest plots from both trials discussed on podcast. It is helpful to listen with the visual so you can follow the discussion, criticism, and limits of the insights to be gleaned from the what at first glance appeared to be pivotal findings.

Here is the Palbociclib over survival curve and forest plot...
Picture
Now compare to Ribociclib clinical trial...
Picture
We can also observe regional issues as mentioned by Dr Prasad during the podcast.
Picture
Why does this all matter? Because there is so much to appreciate and evaluate when looking at clinical research. It isn't just about running data or understanding the statistics, it is often about digging deeper.

Think of what is missing not just what is being displayed in the graphics. The pertinent negative...
Picture
    Bonny is a data enthusiast applying curated analysis and visualization to persistent tensions between health policy, economics, and clinical research in oncology.
    Follow @datamongerbonny

    Archives

    November 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015

    Categories

    All

    Subscribe to our mailing list

    * indicates required
    Email Format
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Data & Donuts (thinky thoughts)
  • COLLABORATor
  • Data talks, people mumble
  • Cancer: The Brand
  • Time to make the donuts...
  • donuts (quick nibbles)
  • Tools for writers and soon-to-be writers
  • datamonger.health
  • The "How" of Data Fluency