## Teasing out the overall survival benefit with adjustment for treatment switching to other therapies

Yuqing	Xu 1 ,	Meijing	Wu 2 ,	Weili	He 2 ,	Qiming	Liao 3 ,	Yabing	Mai 2

Abstract :	In	oncology	clinical	trials,	characterizing	the	long-term	overall	survival	(OS) benefit	for	an	experimental	drug	or	treatment	regimen	(experimental	group)	is	often unobservable	if	some	patients	in	the	control	group	switch	to	drugs	in	the	experimental group	and/or	other	cancer	treatments	after	disease	progression.	A	key	question	often raised	by	payers	and	reimbursement	agencies	is	how	to	estimate	the	true	benefit	of	the experimental	drug	group	on	overall	survival	that	would	have	been	estimated	if	there were	no	treatment	switches.	Several	commonly	used	statistical	methods	are	available	to estimate	overall	survival	benefit	while	adjusting	for	treatment	switching,	ranging	from naive	exclusion	or	censoring	approaches	to	more	advanced	methods	including	inverse probability	 of	 censoring	 weighting	 (IPCW),	 iterative	 parameter	 estimation	 (IPE) algorithm	or	rank-preserving	structural	failure	time	models	(RPSFTM).	However,	many clinical	trials	now	have	patients	switching	to	different	treatment	regimens	other	than the	test	drugs,	and	the	existing	methods	cannot	handle	more	complicated	scenarios.	To address	 this	 challenge,	 we	 propose	 two	 additional	 methods:	 stratified	 RPSFTM	 and random-forest-based	 prediction.	 A	 simulation	 study	 is	 conducted	 to	 assess	 the properties	of	the	existing	methods	along	with	the	two	newly	proposed	approaches.

Key	words: randomized	trials,	overall	survival,	treatment	switching,	rank-preserving structural	failure	time	models

1 	Department	of	Statistics,	University	of	Wisconsin-Madison,	Madison,	WI,	USA

2 AbbVie	Inc.	Data	Science	and	Statistics,	North	Chicago,	IL,	USA

3 Department	of	Statistics,	ViiV	Healthcare,	Raleigh-Durham,	NC,	USA

## 1 Introduction

In	 randomized	clinical	trial	 setting,	 treatment	 switching	 is	 defined	 as	 patients	 in	 the control	group	switching	to	the	experimental	drug	and/or	other	cancer	treatments.	It	is common	in	oncology	clinical	 trials	 on	 cancer	 treatments	 and	 also	 occurs	 in	 trials	 of treatments	for	other	diseases.	If	the	switched	therapy	is	effective,	an	intention-to-treat (ITT)	analysis	approach,	which	is	often	used	in	such	trials,	will	underestimate	the	actual long-term	 overall	 survival	 (OS)	 benefit	 of	 the	 test	 drug	 had	 there	 been	 no	 switch. Therefore,	 if	 the	 clinical	 objective	 is	 to	 compare	 the	 long-term	 effectiveness	 of	 an experimental	treatment	with	placebo	or	an	active	comparator,	the	ITT	analysis	often provides	a	biased	assessment.	A	key	question	often	asked	by	payers	and	reimbursement agencies	 is	 on	 how	 to	 estimate	 the	 true	 benefit	 of	 an	 experimental	 drug	 on	 overall survival	that	would	have	been	observed	if	there	were	no	treatment	switches.

Several	commonly	used	statistical	methods	are	available	to	estimate	overall	survival benefit	 while	 adjusting	 for	 treatment	 switching,	 ranging	 from	 naive	 exclusion	 or censoring	 approaches	 to	 more	 advanced	 methods	 including	 inverse	 probability	 of censoring	weighting	(IPCW),	iterative	parameter	estimation	(IPE)	algorithm	or	rankpreserving	 structural	 failure	 time	 models	 (RPSFTM).	 Naïve	 methods	 often	 provide largely	 biased	 results,	 while	 RPSFTM	 and	 IPE	 can	 only	 adjust	 for	 switches	 to	 the experimental	treatment.	They	cannot	handle	cases	where	switches	occur	to	multiple levels	of	treatments.	Furthermore,	IPCW	is	not	very	stable	and	its	confidence	intervals are	 wide	 when	 sample	 sizes	 are	 small	 or	 proportion	 of	 switchers	 is	 relatively	 large. However,	 more	 and	 more	 clinical	 trials	 now	 have	 patients	 switching	 to	 multiple treatments	other	than	the	test	drug,	and	the	existing	methods	are	limited	in	handling this	more	complicated	scenario.	Therefore,	new	methods	are	needed	to	further	reduce potential	biases	and	enhance	the	robustness	of	estimation	and	tests	in	assessing	overall survival	with	the	presence	of	treatment	switching,	especially	when	there	are	patients switching	to	multiple	treatments.	In	this	manuscript,	we	propose	two	new	methods	Stratified	RPSFTM	and	random-forest-based	prediction,	to	overcome	these	difficulties.

In	 section	 2,	 we	 briefly	 introduce	 the	 current	 methods	 on	 treatment	 switching	 from control	arm	to	experimental	treatment,	including	simple	methods	such	as	ITT,	excluding switchers	and	censoring	switchers,	and	advanced	methods,	such	as	IPCW,	RPSFTM	and IPE.	In	section	3,	we	describe	in	detail	the	two	newly	proposed	methods	for	multi-level treatment	switching:	Stratified	RPSFTM	and	random-forest-based	prediction.	Section	4 includes	 a	 simulation	 study	 to	 evaluate	 the	 operating	 characteristics	 of	 the	 existing methods	and	the	newly	proposed	methods	in	analysis	of	overall	survival	benefit	of	a treatment	in	presence	of	multi-level	treatment	switching	under	different	scenarios.	We conclude	with	a	discussion	in	Section	5.

## 2 Current Methods

## 2.1 Simple methods

The	 ITT	 analysis	 is	 to	 evaluate	 overall	 survival	 benefit	 by	 comparing	 the	 observed overall	 survival	 time	 between	 randomized	 control	 arm	 and	 experimental	 arm.	 ITT approach	 serves	 as	 a	 reference	 for	 other	 sophisticated	 approaches.	 However,	 with presence	of	treatment	switching,	if	patients	benefit	from	another	active	therapy,	the	true overall	 survival	 benefit	 associated	 with	 the	 original	 experimental	 treatment	 may	 be inaccurately	estimated	using	the	ITT	approach,	and	this	in	turn	can	affect	the	subsequent cost	effectiveness	analyses	that	rely	on	overall	survival	evidence.

Other	simple	methods	include	excluding	switchers	and	censoring	switchers	at	the	time of	 switching.	 Excluding	 switchers	 breaks	 randomization,	 reduces	 the	 sample	 size	 in control	arm,	and	often	leads	to	bias.	Censoring	switchers	at	the	time	of	switch	also	brings bias	to	analysis	as	the	fundamental	assumption	that	censoring	is	independent	of	survival time	is	unlikely	to	hold	in	this	situation.

## 2.2 Advanced methods

In	 order	 to	 reduce	 the	 potential	 biases	 in	 evaluating	 overall	 survival	 benefit	 of	 a treatment	in	the	presence	of	treatment	switching,	the	following	advanced	methods	that are	currently	available	from	literature	are	introduced	here.

## 2.2.1 Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting (IPCW)

Robins	and	Finkelstein	(2000) 1 	proposed	IPCW	as	a	treatment	effect	estimation method	in	the	presence	of	dependent	censoring	used	in	a	marginal	structural	model (MSM) 2 . For	treatment	switching	cases,	patients	are	artificially	censored	at	the	time	of switch.	Weights	are	increased	for	those	patients	who	did	not	switch	but	have	similar baseline	characteristics	to	patients	who	did	switch.		More	specifically,	the	weights	will be	obtained	for	each	patient	 	based	on	the	inverse	probability	of	patient i i remaining	in the	control	treatment	until	time	 .	Then	treatment	effect	will	be	estimated	using t weighted	survival	analysis	methods,	e.g.	weighted	Cox	regression	model	or	weighted Kaplan-Meier	curve 3 .

The	assumption	of	the	method	is	'no	unmeasured	confounders '	 -	all	baseline	covariates and	all	post-baseline	time	dependent	confounders	that	predict	both	treatment	switch and	outcome	are	included 4 .	However,	this	assumption	is	unlikely	to	hold	and	cannot	be tested	using	the	observed	data.	Some	key	predictors	of	treatment	switching	are	usually not	 collected	 in	 RCTs.	 In	 addition,	 the	 IPCW	 method	 cannot	 work	 if	 there	 are	 any covariates	that	directly	determine	treatment	switches	or	not	(that	is,	the	probability equals	 1).	 Hence	 IPCW	 is	 less	 stable	 and	 its	 confidence	 intervals	 are	 wide	 when	 the sample	sizes	are	small	or	proportion	of	switchers	is	relatively	large.

## 2.2.2 Rank Preserving structure failure time model (RPSFTM)

The	RPSFTM	method,	proposed	by	Robins	and	Tsiatis	(1991) 5 ,	is	the	structural	or strong	version	of	the	'accelerated	failure	time	model	with	time-dependent	covariates' of	Cox	and	Oakes	(1984) 6 . The	RPSFTM	method	uses	a	counterfactual	framework	to estimate	the	treatment	effect,	where	counterfactual	survival	time	refers	to	time	that would	have	been	observed	if	no	experimental	treatment	were	received.	The	method splits	the	observed	event	time T" for	each	patient	into	two	parts:	the	event	time	when the	patient	is	on	the	control	treatment T",$%&amp; ,	and	the	event	time	when	the	patient	is	on the	intervention	treatment, T",'(' .	The	RPSFTM	method	relates T" to	the	counterfactual event	time U" using	accelerated	failure	time	(AFT)	model	with	an	acceleration	factor exp(-ψ) :

$$U _ { i } = T _ { i, C O N } \, + e ^ { \psi } T _ { i, T R T }$$

Due	to	randomization,	assume U" distribution	is	the	same	for	both	arms.	Then	for	a	range of ψ values,	calculate U" and	test	if U" is	equal	for	all	patients	(using	a	standard	survival analysis	test	statistic	Z).	Select ψ that	best	satisfies	test	statistic	Z	( ψ )	=	0.	This	estimation is	the	so-called	g-estimation	proposed	by	Robins	et	al 7 .

One	concern	of	applying	RPSFTM	is	that	survival	time	cannot	be	reduced	in	a	similar fashion	for	censored	patients	without	event.	This	would	introduce	potential	bias	due	to informative	censoring.	Hence	it	is	suggested	in	White	et	al 8 	and	some	other	literature that	when	modeling	counterfactual	survival	time U" , one	can	re-censor	all	patients	at 𝑈2 ∗ = minB𝑈2 , C " , 𝑒 ; C " D

The	key	assumption	of	RPSFTM	is	the	'common	treatment	effect',	which	means	that the	untreated	outcome	U	is	independent	of	the	randomized	groups.	Previous simulation	results	of	Latimer	N,	Abrams	K,	Lambert	P,	et	al.	showed	that	when	this assumption	holds,	RPSFTM	performs	pretty	well 9,10 .	However,	this	assumption	may	not hold	if	switching	is	only	permitted	after	disease	progression.	It	may	be	expected	that the	capacity	for	benefit	amongst	switchers	is	less	than	the	one	in	patients	initially randomized	to	the	experimental	group,	especially	when	patients	in	control	arm	switch to	multiple	treatments	with	different	levels	of	effects.

## 2.2.3 Iterative parameter estimation (IPE)

Branson	and	Whitehead	proposed	IPE	method	in	2002	as	an	extension	of	the	RPSFTM method 11 .	In	general	IPE	method	is	similar	to	the	RPSFTM	method	in	the counterfactual	framework	except	for	estimating	the	acceleration	factor	by	a	parametric likelihood	approach	rather	than	the	G-estimation.	Therefore,	it	requires	an	additional assumption	on	the	distributional	form	of	the	counterfactual	survival	time.	With	this method,	a	parametric	failure	time	model	is	first	fitted	to	the	original,	unadjusted	ITT data	to	obtain	an	initial	estimate	of	ψ.	The	observed	failure	time	of	switching	patients are	then	re-estimated	using	the	counterfactual	survival	time	model,	and	the	treatment groups	are	then	compared	again	using	a	parametric	failure	time	model.	This	gives	an updated	estimate	of 𝜓 and	the	process	of	re-estimating	the	observed	survival	time	of switching	patients	is	repeated.	This	iterative	process	continues	until	the	new	estimate for	exp	( 𝜓 )	converges.

## 3 Proposed Methods and Extension

In	real	clinical	trials,	it	is	possible	that	switchers	switch	to	multiple	treatments	that	differ from	the	experimental	arm,	where	the	assumption	of	'common	treatment	effect'	for RPSFTM	and	IPE	methods	generally	does	not	hold.	In	this	section	we	propose	a	stratified RPSFTM	as	an	extension	to	the	original	RPSFTM.	The	new	method	does	not	rely	on	the 'common	treatment	effect'	assumption	and	hence	is	suitable	for	settings	where	patients may	switch	to	multiple	levels.

In	addition,	we	propose	a	random-forest-based	prediction	approach	to	directly	predict a	patient's	counterfactual	overall	survival	time U" .		This	method	can	deal	with	even	more treatment	levels	that	switchers	switch	to	and	take	care	of	the	cases	of	the	adjustment	for switchers	randomized	to	treatment	arm.

## 3.1 Stratified RPSFTM

The	first	proposed	method	is	the	stratified	RPSFTM,	which	is	an	extension	based	on RPSFTM,	 allowing	 multiple	 levels	 of	 treatment	 effect	 for	 switchers.	 In	 this	 method, patients	 in	 control	 arm	 are	 allowed	 to	 switch	 to	 multiple	 treatments.	 One	 of	 those treatments	can	be	the	experimental	treatment	or	some	equally	efficacious	treatments, and	other	treatments	may	not	have	the	same	effect	as	the	experimental	one.	Therefore, instead	of	assuming	'common	treatment	effect'	across	all	switched	arms,	we	restrict	this assumption	 only	 for	 switchers	 that	 receive	 same	 or	 similar	 treatments	 as	 the experimental	 treatment.	 Switchers	 switching	 to	 other	 treatment	 may	 have	 different levels	of	treatment	effect.	In	addition,	similar	to	the	original	RPSFTM	and	IPE	methods, it	is	still	assumed	that	the	counterfactual	event	time 𝑈2 is	independent	of	randomization and	switching.

Similar	to	RPSFTM,	the	accelerated	failure	time	(AFT)	model	is	applied	to	model	the counter	factual	event	time 𝑈2 . First	we	split	the	observed	event	time 𝑇2 for	each	patient into	two	parts:	the	event	time	when	the	patient	is	on	the	control	treatment 𝑇2,567 ,	and the	event	time	when	the	patient	is	on	the	intervention	treatment, 𝑇2,&lt;=&lt; .

$$T _ { i } = T _ { i, C O N } \, + T _ { i, T R T }$$

Secondly,	for	patient	 	randomized	to	treatment	arm	or	switchers	switching	to	the	same i arm	 or	 treatment	 with	 similar	 effect	 as	 the	 experimental	 drug,	 we	 model	 the corresponding	counterfactual	event	time 𝑈2 with	AFT	model

$$U _ { i } = T _ { i, C O N } \, + \exp \left ( \psi _ { 0 } \right ) T _ { i, T R T }$$

where exp	(-𝜓G) is the acceleration factor corresponding to the experimental treatment. 𝜓G is the	 parameter	 to	 be	 estimated	 in	 this	 equation.	 If exp	(𝜓G ) &lt;	 1 (equivalently 𝜓G &lt; 0), the	experimental	treatment	is	beneficial.

Different	parameters	of 𝜓 are	used	in	AFT	model	to	model	different	levels	of	treatment effect.	 Assume	 that patient i receive  treatment  level k  (k  =  1,  …,  K) , we	 model	 the corresponding	counterfactual	event	time 𝑈2 with	causal	models

## 𝑈2 = 𝑇 2,567 + exp	(𝜓 J )	𝑇 2,&lt;=&lt;

where exp	(-𝜓J ) is	the	acceleration	factor	corresponding	to	the kth	level	of	treatment effect.	If exp(-𝜓J ) &lt; exp	(-𝜓G ) or	equivalently 𝜓J &gt; 𝜓G, the	corresponding	treatment is	less	effective	compared	with	the	experimental	treatment	and	vice	versa.

The	 parameter	 estimation	 method	 is	 motivated	 from	 the	 g-estimation	 of	 RPSFTM. Instead	of	estimating	a	single	parameter 𝜓 ,	we	now	estimate	a	series	of	parameters { 𝜓J }, k	=0,	…,	K .	Hence,	we	consider	grids	for { 𝜓J },	k	=0,	…,	K, and	test	whether	the	distribution of U" is	the	same	for	all	patients.	For	each	combination	of	candidate	values	of { 𝜓J },	k	=0, …,	K ,	calculate U" and	test	the	null	hypothesis	that U" is	the	same	for	all	patients	using	a standard	survival	analysis	test	statistic	Z.	Finally,	combination	of	{ 𝜓J }	that	best	satisfies test	statistic	Z	=	0	is	selected.	Note	that	in	this	step,	as	in	RPSFTM,	re-censoring	can	be applied	if	needed.

After	 g-estimator	 for { 𝜓J }, k	 =0,	 …,	 K are	 obtained,	 we	 can	 compute	 estimated counterfactual	survival	time	for	switchers,	and	perform	ITT	analysis	using	the	observed 𝑇2 for	patients	randomized	to	treatment	arm	and	non-switchers	in	control	arm,	and	the estimated	counterfactual	survival	time 𝑈2 for	switchers.

There	are	two	assumptions	for	stratified	RPSFTM:	the	treatment	effect	of	switchers	can be	categorized	into	several	levels	and 𝑈2 distribution	is	the	same	for	all	patients.	The	first assumption	is	a	relaxation	of	the	'common	treatment	effect	assumption'	in	RPSFTM allowing	the	use	of	several	AFT	models	to	estimate	the	counterfactual	survival	time.	The second	assumption	is	the	same	as	RPSFTM	allowing	the	model	to	obtain	the	g-estimation of	parameters.

The	strength	of	the	stratified	RPSFTM	is	obvious	because	it	doesn't	require	the	stronger assumption	as	compared	to	RPSFTM.	Instead	of	assuming	common	treatment	effect,	it allows	a	few	different	levels	of	treatment	effect,	imitating	more	real-world	scenarios.	In addition,	 the	 estimation	 of	 counterfactual	 survival	 time	 follows	 AFT	 model	 and	 uses information	both	before	and	after	switching.	Hence	the	method	is	relatively	robust	to different	 proportions	 of	 switching	 comparing	 with	 IPCW	 method.	 However,	 the stratified	RPSFTM	may	not	be	suitable	if	there	are	too	many	different	levels	of	treatment effect	 to	 be	 estimated.	 Since	 each	 level	 of	 treatment	 effect	 is	 corresponding	 to	 one parameter,	 increasing	 number	 of	 levels	 add	 extra	 dimension	 of	 parameters	 to	 be estimated	in	the	g-estimation	step	and	increase	computation	burden.

## 3.2 Random Forest based prediction

IPCW	methods	mainly	uses	covariates	to	decide	how	important	a	patient	is	for	the overall	survival	analysis	in	the	presence	of	treatment	switching,	while	RPSFTM	models the	counterfactual	event	time	for	switchers.	In	order	to	combine	potential	benefit	of these	two	tracks,	we	propose	a	new	method	to	predict	counterfactual	event	time	for switchers	using	covariates.	To	achieve	nice	prediction	accuracy,	random	forest	method is	applied	as	our	prediction	model	given its power to handle non-linearity and interaction of covariates.

## 3.2.1 Introduction to Random Forest method

Random	forest 12 	is	a	decision-tree	based,	easy	to	use	machine	learning	algorithm	that possesses	strong	prediction	power	of	the	response	variable	using	covariates	without any	model	form	assumptions.

In	general,	a	random	forest	regression	algorithm	is	as	follows:

- l A	bootstrap	sample	is	drawn	from	the	training	data.
- l Grow	a	tree	to	the	bootstrapped	data	by	selecting	the	best	covariate	and	split-point	in	each splitting	step	such	that	the	corresponding	tree	has	the	best	prediction	accuracy.
- l Repeat	the	above	two	steps	until	a	desired	number	of	tree	models	is	achieved.
- l For	any	new	data	point,	the	final	predicted	value	of	response	variable	is	the	average	of predicted	value	in	all	built	trees.

Similar	to	decision	tree,	random	forest	is	a	non-parametric	method	with	no	assumption on	model	structures,	which	implies	its	flexibility	in	describing	the	unknown	relationship between	response	variable	and	covariates	compared	with	structured	models,	e.g.	Cox PH	model	or	AFT	model.	As	a	result,	tree-based	methods	including	random	forest	are especially	 valuable	 when	 there	 are	 many	 covariates	 and	 interactions	 need	 to	 be considered,	 as those models	 select	 important	 variables	 and	 relation structures automatically	to	achieve	the	best	prediction	accuracy.

Random	forest	is	shown	to	improve	the	prediction	accuracy	of	the	tree	method.	Random forest	predictors	often	have	smaller	variance	as	the	prediction	is	obtained	by	averaging the	 result	 from	 several	 trees.	 In	 addition,	 random	 forest	 method	 uses	 thousands	 of bootstrap	samples	to	build	trees.		It	is	less	likely	to	overfit	the	data	as	compared	with other	prediction	methods.

## 3.2.2 Random Forest based prediction approach in treatment switching

In	this	section	we	propose	a	new	method	to	correct	the	bias	of	evaluating	overall	survival in	the	presence	of	treatment	switching	by	predicting	the	counterfactual	survival	time 𝑈2 using	random	forest.	The	method	and	algorithm	is	described	below:

- 1) The	whole	sample	is	divided	into	training	set	and	prediction	set.	The	training	set	includes all	the	non-switchers	in	the	control	arm,	with	whom	the	observed	survival	time	is	exactly their	counterfactual	survival	time.	A	random	forest	model	to	predict 𝑈2 can	be	trained using	the	training	set	with	all	covariates.
- 2) The	trained	random	forest	model	is	then	used	predict	the	counterfactual	event	time	for switchers.	 	 After	 prediction,	 the	 predicted	 counterfactual	 event	 time	 should	 be	 no shorter	than	the	time	of	switching.	To	ensure	this,	the	maximum	of	predicted	value	and time	of	switching	is	used	as	the	final	counterfactual	survival	time 𝑈 2 .
- 3) Finally,	ITT	analysis	is	performed	with	observed	survival	time 𝑇2 of	non-switchers	and predicted	counterfactual	survival	time 𝑈2 of	switchers.

Unlike	 IPCW	 and	 RPSFTM,	 the	 assumptions	 for	 the	 random-forest-based	 prediction method	rely	on	the	framework	of	causal	inference.	Therefore,	instead	of	assuming	no unmeasured	confounders	or	common	treatment	effect,	this	method	assumes	that	the data	 include	 all	 important	 covariates	 for	 predicting	 counterfactual	 survival	 time. Furthermore,	it	is	assumed	that	for	patients	in	each	arm,	the	counterfactual	survival	time can	be	well	predicted	using	the	same	model	regardless	of	the	patients	are	censored	or not.

The	random-forest-based	prediction	method	does	not	make	assumption	that	patients can	only	switch	to	one	single	treatment,	therefore	this	method	allows	patients	to	switch to	any	different	treatments.	It	also	deals	with	cases	where	patients	in	experimental	arm also switch	 to	 other	 treatments.	 Furthermore,	 this	 method	 does	 not	 need	 any assumptions	 on	 model	 structures	 before	 fitting	 and	 can	 deal	 with	 large	 number	 of covariates,	 especially	 when	 there	 is	 no	 clear	 relationship	 between	 covariates	 and counterfactual	survival	time.

## 4 Simulation Study

In	 this	 section,	 the	 main	 objective	 is	 to	 evaluate	 existing	 methods	 and	 the	 newly proposed	ones	in	the	analysis	of	overall	survival	benefit	of	a	treatment	in	the	presence of	treatment	switching.

The	setting	of	our	simulation	is	designed	based	on	a	real	Phase	III	study	to	investigate the	efficacy	and	safety	of	a	certain	treatment	in	patients	with	a	type	of	blood	cancer. Approximately	400	subjects	were	randomly	assigned	in	1:1	ratio	to	receive	either treatment	arm	or	control	arm.	There	are	approximately	20%	of	events.	About	50%	of patients	in	the	control	arm	switched	to	other	treatments,	with	about	25%	of	patients switching	to	one	particular	treatment	that	is	proved	to	have	similar	overall	survival benefit	as	the	experimental	treatment.	Patient's	baseline	age,	baseline	ECOG,	number	of previous	treatment	lines	and	risk	levels	are	included	as	covariates.

In	order	to	investigate	the	estimation	accuracy	of	the	newly	proposed	methods	targeting on	 multiple	 switching	 scenarios,	 overall	 survival	 data	 are	 simulated	 for	 patients randomized	to	treatment	arm	and	control	arm,	where	the	true	hazard	ratio	of	two	arms are	known.	Patients	in	the	control	arm	are	allowed	to	switch	to	multiple	treatments	with different	 levels	 of	 effects.	 Both	 current	 and	 newly	 proposed	 treatment	 switching adjustment	methods	are	applied	to	adjust	for	switching	biases.	For	each	scenario,	500 repetitions	are	run	to	get	a	reliable	result.

## 4.1 Simulation scenarios

In	 this	 simulation,	 400	 patients	 are	 simulated	 each	 time	 as	 the	 sample	 size	 of	 the experiment.	Three	levels	of	HR	are	simulated:	0.4,	0.6	and	0.8	corresponding	to	large, medium	or	small	treatment	effect,	respectively.	As	for	proportion	of	censoring,	25%,	50% and	75%	are	used	to	represent	low,	moderate	and	high	censoring	rate	of	data.	Similarly, the	 switch	 proportion	 within	 control	 arm	 is	 also	 considered	 in	 three	 levels:	 low (approximately	25%	of	control	arm),	moderate	(approximately	50%	of	control	arm)	and high	(approximately	75%	of	control	arm).

The	treatment	effects	for	patients	in	the	control	arm	switched	to	other	treatments	are divided	into	two	levels.	The	first	level	is	the	experimental	treatment	effect,	which	can	be considered	as	the	effect	of	the	experimental	drug	or	equivalent	ones;	the	second	level	is 30%	less	effective	than	the	experimental	effect,	which	can	be	considered	as	the	effect	of the	secondary	treatments	such	as	standard	of	care.

## 4.2 Simulating survival time

First,	 patients	 are	 randomized	to	treatment	arm	and	control	arm	with	a	ratio	of	1:1. Their	baseline	age	and	ECOG	are	generated	using	Normal	distributions	to	have	similar quartiles	as	the	real	data;	risk	levels	is	a	categorical	variable	generated	from	multinomial distribution.	The	covariates	are	generated	to	be	mutually	independent.	The	underlying survival	time	for	treatment	arm	and	control	arm	is	generated	using	Weibull	accelerated failure	time	(AFT)	model log(S) =	αG +𝛼R	arm + αUbaseline	age	 +	αX baseline	ECOG	 +	α \ risk	level	 + 	ϵ

𝛼R =	-ψ	 =	-log(HR) controls	the	treatment	effect.	HR	is	one	of	the	preset	true	hazard ratios:	 0.4,	 0.6	 or	 0.8. 𝛼U = -0.002, 𝛼X =	𝛼\ 		 = 	 -0.05 are	 chosen	 based	 on	 model estimation	in	the	real	study.

Second,	 the	 time	 of	 switching	 is	 generated	 from	 a	 Uniform	 distribution	 in	 (0,	 365). Whether	to	switch	or	not	is	determined	by	a	Bernoulli	distribution	with	given	switch proportion.	For	switchers	the	new	survival	time	after	switching	is	computed	using	AFT model:

$$T _ { i, T R T } = T _ { i, C O N ( \text{after switching} ) } \times \, \exp ( - \psi _ { k } ) \times F$$

where	the	choice	of	F	is	one	of	the	candidates	1.0	and	0.7,	representing	the	experimental treatment	effect	and	the	secondary	treatment	effect	which	is	70%	of	the	experimental one,	respectively.	The	final	observed	survival	time	for	switchers	are

$$T _ { i } = T _ { i, C O N ( \text{before switch} ) } \ + T _ { i, T R T }$$

## 4.3 Results

For	each	simulated	dataset,	analysis	is	conducted	using	the	following	seven	methods: ITT,	RPSFTM,	IPE,	censoring	switchers,	IPCW,	random	forest	(RF)	and	Stratified	RPSFTM (SRP). The	 performance	 of	 each	 method	 differs	 depending	 upon	 the	 scenarios investigated.

## 4.3.1 Estimated HR and 95% CI

The	performance	of	each	method	in	estimating	hazard	ratio	is	summarized	in	Figure	1 where	true	hazard	ratio	equals	0.4,	0.6	and	0.8	respectively.	In	each	case,	HR	and	95% CI	are	estimated	using	the	seven	methods	for	different	combination	of	censoring	rates and	switch	rates	based	on	500	repetitions.

According	to	Figure	1,	2	and	3,	it	can	be	seen	that	in	most	cases	all	methods	tend	to overestimate	the	true	HR,	or	equivalently,	underestimate	the	overall	survival	benefit	for experimental	treatment.	For	HR	=	0.4	and	0.6,	biases	of	estimations	for	 all	 methods increase	as	censoring	rate	and	switch	rate	get	larger.	When	HR	=	0.8,	the	treatment	effect is	 quite	 small,	 all	 methods	 performs	 closely	 except	 IPCW	 and	 censoring	 switcher methods.	More	specifically,	IPCW	and	censoring	switchers	become	considerably	biased and	 unstable	 when	 both	 censoring	 and	 switch	 rates	 are	 high.	 In	 addition,	 for	 large censoring	rates,	stratified	RPSFTM(SRP)	usually	yields	smaller	biases	and	narrower	CIs while	for	small	censoring	rate	(25%)	and	medium	to	high	switch	rate	(50%	to	75%),	SRP tends	to	underestimate	the	true	HR.	In	this	scenario,	random	forest	method	gives	less biased	and	relatively	robust	estimators.

## 4.3.2 Metrics for Evaluation

Throughout	 our	 simulation,	 three	 metrics	 are	 applied	 for	 evaluation	 of	 treatment switching	adjustment	methods:

- 1. Bias	=	true	HR	-	average	estimated	HR
- 2. Mean	squared	error	(MSE)	= mean[estimated	HR - true	HR] U
- 3. Coverage	ratio:	The	proportion	of	CI	that	covers	the	true	HR

These	three	numerical	metrics	are	summarized	for	the	seven	evaluated	methods	in	table 1,	2	and	3,	respectively,	for	all	scenarios.	The	best	result	among	the	seven	methods	in each	 scenario	 is	 highlighted	 in	 red.	 	 According	 to	 these	 tables,	 the	 current	 existing methods	tend	to	over-estimate	HR,	especially	when	censoring	and	switch	rates	are	high. In	 general,	 RPSFTM	 and	 IPE	 perform	 the	 best	 among	 all	 current	 methods.	 ITT	 gives relatively	 large	 estimated	 HR	 values,	 but	 has	 decent	 performance	 when	 true	 HR increases	to	0.8.	Censoring	and	IPCW	are	really	sensitive	to	high	censoring	and	switch rates	and	are	only	reliable	for	switch	rates	no	larger	than	approximately	0.6.	In	terms	of coverage	probability,	IPCW	and	censoring	switchers	methods	are	least	recommended.

In	 all	 scenarios	 our	 newly	 proposed	 methods	 show	 benefit	 over	 current	 existing methods	among	the	three	numerical	metrics	from	the	simulation.	Stratified	RPSFTM outperforms	 all	 methods	 in	 most	 scenarios	 except	 that	 it	 underestimates	 HR	 when censoring	rate	is	as	small	as	0.25,	in	which	case	random	forest	is	much	more	stable. Recommendations	of	methods	under	different	censoring	rate,	switch	proportion	and	HR are	summarized	in	Table	4.

## 5 Conclusion and Discussion

In	this	paper,	we	summarized	popular	existing	adjustment	methods	for	overall	survival analysis	in	the	presence	of	treatment	switching.	Because	the	existing	methods	require strong	assumptions	that	may	not	be	satisfied	in	real	world	setting	and	are	limited	in	the setting	of	switching	to	single	treatment,	we	proposed	two	new	methods	to	relax	the strong	assumption	and	obtain	more	robust	estimator,	especially	in	the	general	setting that	patients	in	control	arm	switched	to	multiple	treatments.

The	first	method	is	the	stratified	RPSFTM	that	is	an	extension	to	RPSFTM	from	single treatment	 switching	 to	 multiple	 treatment	 switching.	 For	 each	 additional	 level	 of treatment,	an	additional	AFT	model	is	used	to	describe	the	new	treatment	effect.	Hence the	method	has	the	assumption	that	the	counterfactual	survival	time	is	the	same	for every	patient.	This	method	can	deal	with	cases	where	patients	in	control	arm	switch	to a	few	different	levels	of	treatment.	The	estimation	of	stratified	RPSFTM	still	follows	the g-estimation	structure	and	is	similar	to	the	parameter	estimation	procedure	in	Robins, J.	M.,	&amp;	Greenland,	S.	(1994) 13 ,	with	multiple	acceleration	parameters	to	estimate.	The second	 method	 is	 to	 predict	 counterfactual	 event	 time	 using	 random	 forest	 model. Random	forest	method	is	one	of	the	most	reliable	prediction	models	and	the	proposed method	takes	covariates	into	consideration	without	breaking	the	randomization.	It	has much	relaxed	assumption	compared	to	IPCW	and	provides	more	stable	and	less	biased result	when	switch	rate	is	high.

In	 our	 simulation,	 we	 evaluate	 existing	 and	 newly	 proposed	 methods	 in	 different scenarios	in	the	presence	of	multiple	switching.	Simulation	results	show	that	when	HR is	as	high	as	0.8,	switching	or	not	often	does	not	affect	the	overall	survival	benefit	too much	 and	 the	 ITT	 method	 performs	 well.	 In	 other	 scenarios,	 random-forest-based method	provides	better	result	when	censoring	rate	is	low,	as	in	those	cases	the	relatively large	 training	 sample	 sizes	 are	 available	 to	 train	 reliable	 random	 forest	 models. Otherwise,	stratified	RPSFTM	outperforms	all	other	methods.

When	switch	rate	is	at	moderate	to	high	level,	IPCW	and	censoring	methods	tend	to	have large	estimation	biases	and	wide	confidence	intervals.	This	shows	the	major	drawback of	IPCW:	when	proportion	of	switch	is	high,	the	IPC	weights	for	non-switchers	become very	large,	which	causes	large	biases	and	instability	in	estimation.	The	similarity	of	the IPCW	and	censoring	methods	is	due	to	the	fact	that,	when	covariates	have	much	smaller contribution	to	overall	survival	compared	with	treatment	effect,	IPC	weights	are	closed to	1	and	IPCW	methods	is	not	very	effective	in	correcting	the	switching	biases.

In	addition,	RPSFTM	performs	similarly	to	stratified	RPSFTM.	This	is	probably	due	to the	 fact	 that	 the	 two	 methods	 share	 the	 same	 AFT	 model	 except	 for	 using	 different acceleration	parameters.	In	our	simulation,	the	two	new	switched?	treatments	have	70% of	experimental	treatment	effect.	If	the	number	of	new	treatment	increases,	or	the	new treatment	effect	differs	a	lot	from	the	experimental	treatment,	it	is	reasonable	to	expect a	larger	difference	in	estimation	of	HR	using	RPSFTM	and	stratified	RPSFTM.

Even	 though	 the	 newly	 proposed	 methods	 improve	 and	 extend	 current	 methods	 in different	 directions,	 there	 are	 still	 limitations	 for	 each	 of	 the	 methods.	 For	 stratified RPSFTM,	 the	 current	 parameter	 estimation	 method	 is	 based	 on	 the	 g-estimation	 in RPSFTM.	However,	as	the	number	of	new	treatment	levels	increases,	the	computation burden	of	g-estimation	increases	dramatically	because	the	g-estimation	is	based	on	grid search	of	the	best	candidate	of	parameter	values.	Hence	the	stratified	RPSFTM	is	more suitable	for	small	number	of	new	treatment	levels	(usually	fewer	than	four	levels).	If better	parameter	estimation	method	or	algorithm	is	developed	in	the	future,	this	method can	be	less	limited.	For	random-forest-based	method,	it	is	required	that	for	all	patients in	each	arm,	regardless	of	censored	or	dead,	the	counterfactual	survival	time	can	be	well predicted	using	the	same	model.	This	is	a	relatively	strong	assumption	and	hard	to	check. Future	improvement	of	this	method	can	be	targeted	on	relaxing	the	strong	assumptions.

In	summary,	the	two	new	proposed	methods	should	add	to	the	current	literature	for analyzing	overall	survival	with	treatment	switching	and	fill	the	methodologic	gaps	that still	exist	in	the	field.

## 6 References

- 1. Robins J M, Finkelstein D M. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS clinical trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log rank tests[J]. Biometrics, 2000, -56(3): 779-788.
- 2. Robins J M, Hernan M A, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology[J]. 2000.
- 3. Pepe M S, Fleming T R. Weighted Kaplan-Meier statistics: a class of distance tests for censored survival data[J]. Biometrics, 1989: 497-507.
- 4. Robins J M, Finkelstein D M. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS clinical trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log rank tests[J]. Biometrics, 2000, -56(3): 779-788.
- 5. Robins J M, Tsiatis A A. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models[J]. Communications in statistics-Theory and Methods, 1991, 20(8): 2609-2631.
- 6. Cox D R. Analysis of survival data[M]. Routledge, 2018.
- 7. Robins J M, Blevins D, Ritter G, et al. G-estimation of the effect of prophylaxis therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia on the survival of AIDS patients[J]. Epidemiology, 1992: 319-336.
- 8. White I R, Walker S, Babiker A G, et al. Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial[J]. Aids, 1997, 11(8): 999-1006.
- 9. Latimer N R, Abrams K R, Lambert P C, et al. Adjusting for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials-a simulation study and a simplified two-stage method[J]. Statistical methods in medical research, 2017, 26(2): 724-751.
- 10. Latimer N R, Abrams K R, Lambert P C, et al. Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in clinical trials: A follow-up simulation study[J]. Statistical methods in medical research, 2018, 27(3): 765-784.
- 11. Branson M, Whitehead J. Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment[J]. Statistics in medicine, 2002, 21(17): 2449-2463.
- 12. Breiman L. Random forests[J]. Machine learning, 2001, 45(1): 5-32.
- 13. Robins J M, Greenland S. Adjusting for differential rates of prophylaxis therapy for PCP in highversus low-dose AZT treatment arms in an AIDS randomized trial[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1994, 89(427): 737-749.

7 Tables Table	1	MSE	( ×10 U )	for	seven	evaluated	methods	in	all	scenarios.

|           |              | HR = 0.4     | HR = 0.6     | HR = 0.6     | HR = 0.6     | HR = 0.6     | HR = 0.8     | HR = 0.8     | HR = 0.8     | HR = 0.8     |
|-----------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|
| Methods   | MSE          | 25% Censored | 50% Censored | 75% Censored | 25% Censored | 50% Censored | 75% Censored | 25% Censored | 50% Censored | 75% Censored |
| ITT       | 25% Switched | 0.826        | 0.853        | 1.236        | 0.753        | 1.023        | 1.953        | 0.888        | 1.364        | 2.734        |
| RPSFTM    | 25% Switched | 0.290        | 0.445        | 0.96         | 0.612        | 0.929        | 1.961        | 1.096        | 1.634        | 3.130        |
| IPE       | 25% Switched | 0.305        | 0.462        | 0.979        | 0.609        | 0.928        | 1.959        | 1.074        | 1.609        | 3.094        |
| Censoring | 25% Switched | 0.510        | 0.832        | 1.714        | 1.234        | 2.031        | 4.213        | 2.372        | 3.968        | 7.990        |
| IPCW      | 25% Switched | 0.516        | 0.838        | 1.727        | 1.245        | 2.046        | 4.232        | 2.392        | 3.985        | 8.042        |
| RF        | 25% Switched | 0.294        | 0.501        | 1.102        | 0.583        | 0.915        | 1.946        | 0.989        | 1.466        | 2.849        |
| SRP       | 25% Switched | 0.275        | 0.394        | 0.953        | 0.594        | 0.875        | 1.885        | 1.059        | 1.528        | 2.922        |
| ITT       | 50% Switched | 2.543        | 2.367        | 2.799        | 1.405        | 1.659        | 2.703        | 0.929        | 1.457        | 2.665        |
| RPSFTM    | 50% Switched | 0.391        | 0.604        | 1.551        | 0.856        | 1.229        | 2.585        | 1.585        | 2.212        | 3.600        |
| IPE       | 50% Switched | 0.499        | 0.760        | 1.720        | 0.815        | 1.225        | 2.586        | 1.413        | 2.040        | 3.470        |
| Censoring | 50% Switched | 1.964        | 3.414        | 7.679        | 5.499        | 9.708        | 20.50        | 11.45        | 20.16        | 40.63        |
| IPCW      | 50% Switched | 1.982        | 3.440        | 7.721        | 5.542        | 9.733        | 20.61        | 11.52        | 20.20        | 40.84        |
| RF        | 50% Switched | 0.357        | 0.732        | 1.967        | 0.711        | 1.113        | 2.517        | 1.169        | 1.631        | 2.891        |
| SRP       | 50% Switched | 0.456        | 0.467        | 1.451        | 0.883        | 1.054        | 2.365        | 1.413        | 1.782        | 2.990        |
| ITT       | 75% Switched | 5.768        | 4.876        | 4.876        | 2.185        | 2.431        | 3.085        | 0.916        | 1.572        | 2.250        |
| RPSFTM    | 75% Switched | 0.591        | 0.758        | 0.758        | 1.436        | 1.627        | 2.815        | 2.645        | 3.258        | 3.686        |
| IPE       | 75% Switched | 1.124        | 1.330        | 1.330        | 1.079        | 1.486        | 2.789        | 1.876        | 2.717        | 3.367        |
| Censoring | 75% Switched | 12.313       | 19.989       | 19.989       | 35.537       | 62.642       | 153.72       | 79.035       | 145.53       | 320.67       |
| IPCW      | 75% Switched | 12.528       | 20.377       | 20.377       | 36.142       | 64.727       | 152.16       | 80.128       | 151.99       | 317.85       |
| RF        | 75% Switched | 0.488        | 0.860        | 0.860        | 0.910        | 1.274        | 2.719        | 1.393        | 1.950        | 2.550        |
| SRP       | 75% Switched | 0.988        | 0.597        | 0.597        | 1.586        | 1.260        | 2.194        | 2.017        | 2.256        | 2.706        |

Table	2		Bias( ×10 U )	for	seven	evaluated	methods	in	all	scenarios.

|            |          | HR = 0.4      |               |               | HR = 0.6     |               |                     | HR = 0.8            |                     |                     |
|------------|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|--------------|---------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Methods    |          | 25% Censored  | 50% Censored  | 75% Censored  | 25% Censored | 50% Censored  | 75% Censored -4.159 | 25% Censored -1.443 | 50% Censored -1.484 | 75% Censored -1.829 |
| ITT        | 25%      | -7.225        | -6.387        | -5.559        | -4.569 0.257 | -4.245 -0.486 | -1.763              | 1.142               | 0.561               | -0.651              |
| RPSFTM IPE | 25%      | -0.245 -0.855 | -1.318 -1.732 | -2.386 -2.619 | -0.181       | -0.833        | -1.964              | 0.929               | 0.365               | -0.761              |
| Censoring  | 25%      | -4.395        | -5.896        | -7.838        | -7.445       | -9.638        | -12.71              | -10.68              | -13.80              | -18.46              |
| IPCW       | 25%      | -4.420        | -5.916        | -7.862        | -7.476       | -9.664        | -12.72              | -10.71              | -13.81              | -18.49              |
| RF         | 25%      | -0.920        | -2.807        | -4.279        | -0.913       | -2.252        | -3.601              | -0.530              | -1.165              | -2.181              |
| SRP        | 25%      | 1.381         | -0.554        | -2.543        | 1.234        | -0.532        | -2.204              | 0.888               | -0.026              | -1.276              |
| ITT        |          | -14.64        | -13.39        | -12.48        | -8.887       | -8.435        | -8.236              | -2.320              | -2.531              | -1.992              |
| RPSFTM     | Switched | 0.422         | -2.005        | -5.371        | 1.646        | -0.270        | -3.234              | 3.650               | 2.026               | 0.613               |
| IPE        | Switched | -2.570        | -4.051        | -6.584        | -0.453       | -1.823        | -4.126              | 2.547               | 1.136               | 0.116               |
| Censoring  | Switched | -11.910       | -15.83        | -22.89        | -20.54       | -27.16        | -37.48              | -30.03              | -39.55              | -53.74              |
| IPCW       | Switched | -11.968       | -15.88        | -22.90        | -20.62       | -27.20        | -37.52              | -30.13              | -39.58              | -53.79              |
| RF         | Switched | -0.612        | -4.417        | -8.787        | -0.404       | -3.195        | -6.514              | 0.577               | -0.949              | -2.325              |
| SRP        |          | 4.037         | -0.085        | -5.599        | 3.870        | 0.012         | -4.129              | 3.444               | 1.209               | -0.456              |
| ITT        |          | 5.768         | 4.876         | 4.876         | -12.27       | -11.88        | -10.84              | -2.579              | -2.605              | -2.306              |
| RPSFTM     |          | 0.591         | 0.758         | 0.758         | 5.331        | 1.515         | -2.514              | 8.317               | 5.244               | 2.608               |
| IPE        |          | 1.124         | 1.330         | 1.330         | -0.345       | -2.334        | -4.978              | 5.055               | 3.003               | 1.059               |
| Censoring  |          | 12.313        | 19.989        | 19.989        | -56.52       | -73.96        | -112.14             | -84.51              | -112.5              | -162.43             |
| IPCW       |          | 12.528        | 20.377        | 20.377        | -56.92       | -75.08        | -111.81             | -84.80              | -114.4              | -161.59             |
| RF         |          | 0.488         | 0.860         | 0.860         | 1.452        | -3.239        | -8.361              | 2.496               | -0.259              | -2.845              |
| SRP        |          | 0.988         | 0.597         | 0.597         | 7.946        | 0.924         | -4.231              | 7.165               | 2.900               | 1.399               |

Table	3	Coverage	percentage	for	seven	evaluated	methods	in	all	scenarios.

|             |              | HR = 0.4           |                    |                     | HR = 0.6           |                    |                    | HR = 0.8           | 50%            |                    |
|-------------|--------------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------------|--------------------|
| Methods ITT | Coverage     | 25% Censored 74.6% | 50% Censored 84.4% | 75% Censored 91.4 % | 25% Censored 91.0% | 50% Censored 92.8% | 75% Censored 93.2% | 25% Censored 95.0% | Censored 94.6% | 75% Censored 94.8% |
| RPSFTM      | Coverage     | 95.8%              | 95.0%              | 94.4 %              | 93.6%              | 94.6%              | 93.8%              | 92.8%              | 92.6%          | 93.2%              |
| IPE         | Coverage     | 95.0%              | 93.8%              | 94.4 %              | 93.4%              | 94.2%              | 93.8%              | 93.0%              | 92.8%          | 93.2%              |
| Censoring   | Coverage     | 87.2%              | 85.6 %             | 85.6 %              | 80.2%              | 81.2%              | 83.0%              | 76.4%              | 76.2%          | 76.2%              |
| IPCW        | Coverage     | 87.2 %             | 85.8 %             | 85.4 %              | 80.4%              | 81.6%              | 82.8%              | 76.2%              | 76.4%          | 76.4%              |
| RF          | Coverage     | 94.4%              | 93.4%              | 93.4 %              | 94.8%              | 94.0%              | 93.0%              | 93.4%              | 93.6%          | 94.0%              |
| SRP         | Coverage     | 96.6%              | 96.6%              | 94.8 %              | 94.2%              | 95.2%              | 93.4%              | 92.2%              | 93.8%          | 93.8%              |
| ITT         | 50% Switched | 37.0%              | 59.2%              | 81.0%               | 81.0%              | 87.4%              | 91.2%              | 94.8%              | 95.0%          | 94.6%              |
| RPSFTM      | 50% Switched | 96.0%              | 94.4%              | 92.6%               | 91.8%              | 93.4%              | 92.4%              | 86.6%              | 88.8%          | 91.4%              |
| IPE         | 50% Switched | 91.8%              | 91.4%              | 90.8%               | 92.2%              | 92.8%              | 92.6%              | 88.8%              | 90.2%          | 91.6%              |
| Censoring   | 50% Switched | 56.0%              | 50.8%              | 53.4%               | 33.4%              | 33.0%              | 38.2%              | 22.8%              | 22.0%          | 27.2%              |
| IPCW        | 50% Switched | 54.6%              | 49.2%              | 52.8%               | 34.2%              | 32.6%              | 37.8%              | 20.4%              | 20.8%          | 27.0%              |
| RF          | 50% Switched | 96.0%              | 90.6%              | 87.8%               | 93.8%              | 93.2%              | 91.6%              | 91.8%              | 94.0%          | 92.4%              |
| SRP         | 50% Switched | 95.8%              | 97.6%              | 93.0%               | 91.4%              | 94.4%              | 92.8%              | 87.6%              | 92.0%          | 93.0%              |
| ITT         | 75% Switched | 3.2%               | 15.6%              | 50.0 %              | 64.8%              | 79.6%              | 87.2 %             | 95.0%              | 94.6%          | 95.6%              |
| RPSFTM      | 75% Switched | 77.4%              | 84.8%              | 81.2 %              | 72.4%              | 82.2%              | 87.4 %             | 66.8%              | 77.6%          | 86.0%              |
| IPE         | 75% Switched | 68.4%              | 70.8%              | 74.4 %              | 81.8%              | 85.6%              | 88.6 %             | 78%                | 83.8%          | 88.6%              |
| Censoring   | 75% Switched | 6.2%               | 5.4 %              | 6.3 %               | 2.4%               | 2.4 %              | 3.6 %              | 0.4%               | 0.8%           | 3.6%               |
| IPCW        | 75% Switched | 7.0 %              | 5.6 %              | 6.4 %               | 2.4 %              | 2.4 %              | 3.6 %              | 0.6%               | 0.6%           | 3.2%               |
| RF          | 75% Switched | 84.4%              | 82.8%              | 70.4 %              | 84.6%              | 90.4%              | 88.6 %             | 84.0%              | 90.6%          | 93.0%              |
| SRP         | 75% Switched | 54.4%              | 87.4%              | 80.6 %              | 68.2%              | 87.4%              | 89.8 %             | 75.2%              | 85.4%          | 90.6%              |

Table	4	Recommendations	of	methods	under	different	censor	rate,	switch	proportion and	expected	HR

| Recommended Method   |              | 25% Censored   | 50% Censored   | 75% Censored   |
|----------------------|--------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
| HR=0.4               | 25% Switched | SRP            | SRP            | SRP            |
|                      | 50% Switched | RF             | SRP            | SRP            |
|                      | 75% Switched | RF             | SRP            | SRP            |
| HR=0.6               | 25% Switched | RF             | SRP            | SRP            |
|                      | 50% Switched | RF             | SRP            | SRP            |
|                      | 75% Switched | RF             | SRP            | SRP            |
| HR=0.8               | 25% Switched | ITT            | ITT            | ITT            |
|                      | 50% Switched | ITT            | ITT            | ITT            |
|                      | 75% Switched | ITT            | ITT            | ITT            |

Figure	1:	Estimated	HR	for	seven	evaluated	methods	under	scenarios	when	true	HR	= 0.4.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00654v1-figure-349b369c-19e1-42b7-ad9a-b5e95cd29176.jpg)

Figure	2:	Estimated	HR	for	seven	evaluated	methods	under	scenarios	when	true	HR	= 0.6

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00654v1-figure-06a9bdf4-d10d-4504-a2c1-80ceffafa0cc.jpg)

Figure	3:	Estimated	HR	for	seven	evaluated	methods	under	scenarios	when	true	HR	= 0.8

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00654v1-figure-e397f507-f119-438f-bc23-291d313715bd.jpg)
Yuqing Xu Meijing Wu Weili He Qiming Liao Yabing Mai
Teasing out the overall survival benefit with adjustment for treatment switching to other therapies
In oncology clinical trials, characterizing the long-term overall survival
(OS) benefit for an experimental drug or treatment regimen (experimental group)
is often unobservable if some patients in the control group switch to drugs in
the experimental group and/or other cancer treatments after disease
progression. A key question often raised by payers and reimbursement agencies
is how to estimate the true benefit of the experimental drug group on overall
survival that would have been estimated if there were no treatment switches.
Several commonly used statistical methods are available to estimate overall
survival benefit while adjusting for treatment switching, ranging from naive
exclusion or censoring approaches to more advanced methods including inverse
probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), iterative parameter estimation (IPE)
algorithm or rank-preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM). However,
many clinical trials now have patients switching to different treatment
regimens other than the test drugs, and the existing methods cannot handle more
complicated scenarios. To address this challenge, we propose two additional
methods: stratified RPSFTM and random-forest-based prediction. A simulation
study is conducted to assess the properties of the existing methods along with
the two newly proposed approaches.