An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population
- 18 February 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Health Economics
- Vol. 12 (3) , 171-186
- https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.710
Abstract
This study is motivated by the potential problem of using observational data to draw inferences about treatment outcomes when experimental data are not available. We compare two statistical approaches, ordinary least‐squares (OLS) and instrumental variables (IV) regression analysis, to estimate the outcomes (three‐year post‐treatment survival) of three treatments for early stage breast cancer in elderly women: mastectomy (MST), breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCSRT), and breast conserving surgery only (BCSO). The primary data source was Medicare claims for a national random sample of 2907 women (age 67 or older) with localized breast cancer who were treated between 1992 and 1994.Contrary to randomized clinical trial (RCT) results, analysis with the observational data found highly significant differences in survival among the three treatment alternatives: 79.2% survival for BCSO, 85.3% for MST, and 93.0% for BCSRT. Using OLS to control for the effects of observable characteristics narrowed the estimated survival rate differences, which remained statistically significant. In contrast, the IV analysis estimated survival rate differences that were not significantly different from 0. However, the IV‐point estimates of the treatment effects were quantitatively larger than the OLS estimates, unstable, and not significantly different from the OLS results. In addition, both sets of estimates were in the same quantitative range as the RCT results.We conclude that unadjusted observational data on health outcomes of alternative treatments for localized breast cancer should not be used for cost‐effectiveness studies. Our comparisons suggest that whether one places greater confidence in the OLS or the IV results depends on at least three factors: (1) the extent of observable health information that can be used as controls in OLS estimation, (2) the outcomes of statistical tests of the validity of the instrumental variable method, and (3) the similarity of the OLS and IV estimates. In this particular analysis, the OLS estimates appear to be preferable because of the instability of the IV estimates. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak InstrumentsEconometrica, 1997
- Minimal Increase in Use of Breast-Conserving Surgery from 1986 to 1990Medical Care, 1996
- Reanalysis and Results after 12 Years of Follow-up in a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy with Lumpectomy with or without Irradiation in the Treatment of Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1995
- Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation Between the Instruments and the Endogeneous Explanatory Variable is WeakJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1995
- Psychological effects of being offered choice of surgery for breast cancerBMJ, 1994
- Geographic Variation in the Use of Breast-Conserving Treatment for Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Geographic Variation in the Treatment of Localized Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Five-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy and Segmental Mastectomy with or without Radiation in the Treatment of Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1985
- Two-Stage Least Squares and Econometric Systems Linear in Parameters but Nonlinear in the Endogenous VariablesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1971