Swimmers, Spider, & Waterfall Plots are everywhere in Oncology

Led by @mlythoe & Olivier
We offer an improvement in our new paper
The Iceberg Plot

Let me explain why it is preferable & teach you about all 4....
[Tweetorial]
ejcancer.com/article/S0959-… Image
All other plots we use in oncology
Tell you what happens AFTER you start the protocol

A swimmers plot shows when treatment was given, and when response and progression occurred for each individual Image
A spider plot shows the tumor size for each patient, every time they were assessed, over time. Image
And a waterfall plot shows you the single best subsequent scan for each assessable patient. Image
All these scans have issues

If you select patients with very indolent biology, a swimmers plot will not distinguish drug activity from v. slow tumor growth
A spider plot is messy and hard to compare

A waterfall plot is the single best subsequent scan, but RECIST 1.1., uses a confirmatory scan for response, and thus, even 100% shrinkage is not always CR, and 30% is not always PR as it is fleeting
Previously Sunny Kim (OHSU fellow on job market)

Showed waterfall plots exaggerated effect size by ~12% b/c of the aforementioned reason as well as b/c it omits people who are too sick to be assessed

jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
Because so many uncontrolled studies are run with massive selection filters, we felt that swimmers and waterfall plots were not good enough.

We wanted a way to visual the nature of a person's cancer biology.

How had their cancer responded and behaved with prior therapy
Enter the Iceberg plot

The bars above the waterline show the depth and duration of response to current therapy, and below the line shows the past history of treatment.

A short bar underwater, but long bar above water is suggestive of a special new drug

But.... Image
... A long underwater bar, and short bar above the surface is suggestive of indolent or pan-sensitive tumor biology.

Hey investors, if you are getting pitched on a new companies drug based on uncontrolled study. Ask for an iceberg plot, as it will reveal the truth
If you enjoyed this tweetorial, follow @vkprasadlab where we will highlight our papers on health policy, evidence based appraisal, and oncology

vinayakkprasad.com/papers

ejcancer.com/article/S0959-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️📷

Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️📷 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @VPrasadMDMPH

19 Dec
Our new paper in @EJCI_News argues that Randomized trials are necessary in medicine & PH for interventions w putative benefit & at best MED to LG effect size.

Parachutes & smoking are not good counter examples

Here is the explanation 🧵
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111… Image
Some people argue that b/c we did not need RCTs to know smoking is harmful or Parachutes are life saving, we don't need them to test cloth masking, or the Impella, or some new cancer drug, or HCQ, or <insert ur favorite practice>

But this is based on misunderstanding Image
There is a huge range of things we can do to someone that might hurt them or save them, imagine the spectrum (below)

Let's start on the harms side Image
Read 14 tweets
16 Dec
Now out in @EJCI_News
Logan Powell & I show where randomized trials necessary

When people say 'we don't need an RCT of smoking (to prove harm) or parachutes (to prove benefit)' does that apply to widespread medical interventions?
🧵
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ec…
2
Read 4 tweets
14 Dec
Led by Timothee Olivier, our new paper is now out at @JAMANetworkOpen

We analyze 12 years of FDA approvals, and do the hard work of sorting them into
New Mechanism of Action (MOA)
& New MOA for that tumor type
Vs next in class

jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
First we find, more drug approvals over time!

More approvals means more innovation, right?
Next we show how many drug approvals are truly innovative

The dark bar shows the first approval of a new MOA across tumor types, or within a tumor type (bottom pane)

(bottom pane) the brown bar is moving to an earlier line
light blue = next in class
Read 7 tweets
11 Dec
Few prelim thoughts on this trial (from quick read)
#ASH21
1. It is not a 'second line' trial, it is a trial in the worst subset of second line pts & cannot extrapolate beyond

Primary refractory & relapse <12 mo

(TBH, a lot of people doing this already) Image
As such, it should not generalize to relapse > 12 months

2. That said, for those included, axi-cel seems preferable to chemo then auto; I am not surprised this is true in the most chemo insensitive biology. But a few more thoughts Image
3. This is Wrong, you are not supposed to do this 👇👇
Standard practice is to take these pts to CAR-T if needed in the control arm; thus, you must compare routine, upfront CAR-T to using CAR-T as salvage when indicated and standard of care.

And you don't adjust for it Image
Read 9 tweets
30 Nov
Every time you add a dose of vax
from 1 to 2
2 to 3
3 to 4

you have some increased risk of myocarditis leading to hospitalization (for sure)

& possibly, some lower risk of being very sick with covid

How do we weigh these?
🧵
Of course good vaccine approvals occur when:

the reduction in risk of bad covid outcomes from getting 1 more dose is
> (Greater than)
the risk of bad vaccine outcomes from getting 1 more dose

This must be re-calculated with each dose
There is uncertainty around both estimates

We know the rate of myocarditis after dose 2 in these ages (1 in 5-10k), but not dose 3

We know the risk of hospitalization at these ages among unvaccinated

That risk falls with 1 dose; it falls a bit more with 2
Read 13 tweets
3 Oct
All these people 👇 are lying about the content of my piece & tagging my employer @UCSFHospitals

My piece which anyone can read: vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/how-democrac…

Is about a future scenario where pandemic precedents may subvert democracy

Its not a Holocaust analogy

Why do they lie?🧵
The piece clearly states it is not about the present, but the future

A series of events that might happen, but has not yet occurred....
It describes 7 key factors which are vulnerabilities in our pandemic response where democracy can be threatened in the future

this is more likely to come from the counter party (i.e. the group that opposed these things this time)
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(