Two‐stage phase II survival trial design

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression‐free survival or event‐free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two‐stage single‐arm phase II trials with a time‐to‐event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two‐stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two‐stage design can be routinely used for single‐arm phase II trial designs with a time‐to‐event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two‐stage design for the binary outcome.     

Treatment effect quantification for time‐to‐event endpoints–Estimands,analysis strategies,and beyond

A draft addendum to ICH E9 has been released for public consultation in August 2017. The addendum focuses on two topics particularly relevant for randomized confirmatory clinical trials: estimands and sensitivity analyses. The need to amend ICH E9 grew out of the realization of a lack of alignment between the objectives of a clinical trial stated in the protocol and the accompanying quantification of the “treatment effect” reported in a regulatory submission. We embed time‐to‐event endpoints in the estimand framework and discuss how the four estimand attributes described in the addendum apply to time‐to‐event endpoints. We point out that if the proportional hazards assumption is not met, the estimand targeted by the most prevalent methods used to analyze time‐to‐event endpoints, logrank test, and Cox regression depends on the censoring distribution. We discuss for a large randomized clinical trial how the analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints as well as the sensitivity analyses actually performed in the trial can be seen in the context of the addendum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to do so for a trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint. Questions that remain open with the addendum for time‐to‐event endpoints and beyond are formulated, and recommendations for planning of future trials are given. We hope that this will provide a contribution to developing a common framework based on the final version of the addendum that can be applied to design, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports in the future.     

Intermediate clinical events,surrogate markers and survival

This paper investigates one- and two-sample problems comparing survival times when an individual may experience an intermediate event prior to death or reaching some well defined endpoint. The intermediate event may be polychotomous. Patients experiencing the intermediate event may have an altered survival distribution after the intermediate event. Score tests are derived for testing if the occurrence of the intermediate event actually alters survival. These models have implications for evaluating therapies without randomization as well as strengthening the log rank test for comparing two survival distributions. The exact distribution of the score tests can be found by conditioning on both the waiting time and occurrence of the intermedate event.Deceased     

The win ratio: Impact of censoring and follow‐up time and use with nonproportional hazards

The win ratio has been studied methodologically and applied in data analysis and in designing clinical trials. Researchers have pointed out that the results depend on follow‐up time and censoring time, which are sometimes used interchangeably. In this article, we distinguish between follow‐up time and censoring time, show theoretically the impact of censoring on the win ratio, and illustrate the impact of follow‐up time. We then point out that, if the treatment has long‐term benefit from a more important but less frequent endpoint (eg, death), the win ratio can show that benefit by following patients longer, avoiding masking by more frequent but less important outcomes, which occurs in conventional time‐to‐first‐event analyses. For the situation of nonproportional hazards, we demonstrate that the win ratio can be a good alternative to methods such as landmark survival rate, restricted mean survival time, and weighted log‐rank tests.     

Weighted re‐randomization tests for minimization with unbalanced allocation

Re‐randomization test has been considered as a robust alternative to the traditional population model‐based methods for analyzing randomized clinical trials. This is especially so when the clinical trials are randomized according to minimization, which is a popular covariate‐adaptive randomization method for ensuring balance among prognostic factors. Among various re‐randomization tests, fixed‐entry‐order re‐randomization is advocated as an effective strategy when a temporal trend is suspected. Yet when the minimization is applied to trials with unequal allocation, fixed‐entry‐order re‐randomization test is biased and thus compromised in power. We find that the bias is due to non‐uniform re‐allocation probabilities incurred by the re‐randomization in this case. We therefore propose a weighted fixed‐entry‐order re‐randomization test to overcome the bias. The performance of the new test was investigated in simulation studies that mimic the settings of a real clinical trial. The weighted re‐randomization test was found to work well in the scenarios investigated including the presence of a strong temporal trend. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An investigation into the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula modelling approach for evaluating time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints which comprise of one or more events of interest

Clinical trials of experimental treatments must be designed with primary endpoints that directly measure clinical benefit for patients. In many disease areas, the recognised gold standard primary endpoint can take many years to mature, leading to challenges in the conduct and quality of clinical studies. There is increasing interest in using shorter‐term surrogate endpoints as substitutes for costly long‐term clinical trial endpoints; such surrogates need to be selected according to biological plausibility, as well as the ability to reliably predict the unobserved treatment effect on the long‐term endpoint. A number of statistical methods to evaluate this prediction have been proposed; this paper uses a simulation study to explore one such method in the context of time‐to‐event surrogates for a time‐to‐event true endpoint. This two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method has been extensively studied for time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints with one event of interest, but thus far has not been explored for the assessment of surrogates which have multiple events of interest, such as those incorporating information directly from the true clinical endpoint. We assess the sensitivity of the method to various factors including strength of association between endpoints, the quantity of data available, and the effect of censoring. In particular, we consider scenarios where there exist very little data on which to assess surrogacy. Results show that the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method performs well under certain circumstances and could be considered useful in practice, but demonstrates limitations that may prevent universal use.     

Nonparametric covariate adjustment in estimating hazard ratios

In randomized clinical trials with time‐to‐event outcomes, the hazard ratio is commonly used to quantify the treatment effect relative to a control. The Cox regression model is commonly used to adjust for relevant covariates to obtain more accurate estimates of the hazard ratio between treatment groups. However, it is well known that the treatment hazard ratio based on a covariate‐adjusted Cox regression model is conditional on the specific covariates and differs from the unconditional hazard ratio that is an average across the population. Therefore, covariate‐adjusted Cox models cannot be used when the unconditional inference is desired. In addition, the covariate‐adjusted Cox model requires the relatively strong assumption of proportional hazards for each covariate. To overcome these challenges, a nonparametric randomization‐based analysis of covariance method was proposed to estimate the covariate‐adjusted hazard ratios for multivariate time‐to‐event outcomes. However, empirical evaluations of the performance (power and type I error rate) of the method have not been studied. Although the method is derived for multivariate situations, for most registration trials, the primary endpoint is a univariate outcome. Therefore, this approach is applied to univariate outcomes, and performance is evaluated through a simulation study in this paper. Stratified analysis is also investigated. As an illustration of the method, we also apply the covariate‐adjusted and unadjusted analyses to an oncology trial. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Shift in re‐randomization distribution with conditional randomization test

Proschan, Brittain, and Kammerman made a very interesting observation that for some examples of the unequal allocation minimization, the mean of the unconditional randomization distribution is shifted away from 0. Kuznetsova and Tymofyeyev linked this phenomenon to the variations in the allocation ratio from allocation to allocation in the examples considered in the paper by Proschan et al. and advocated the use of unequal allocation procedures that preserve the allocation ratio at every step. In this paper, we show that the shift phenomenon extends to very common settings: using conditional randomization test in a study with equal allocation. This phenomenon has the same cause: variations in the allocation ratio among the allocation sequences in the conditional reference set, not previously noted. We consider two kinds of conditional randomization tests. The first kind is the often used randomization test that conditions on the treatment group totals; we describe the variations in the conditional allocation ratio with this test on examples of permuted block randomization and biased coin randomization. The second kind is the randomization test proposed by Zheng and Zelen for a multicenter trial with permuted block central allocation that conditions on the within‐center treatment totals. On the basis of the sequence of conditional allocation ratios, we derive the value of the shift in the conditional randomization distribution for specific vector of responses and the expected value of the shift when responses are independent identically distributed random variables. We discuss the asymptotic behavior of the shift for the two types of tests. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

Block response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials with binary endpoints

In a clinical trial, response-adaptive randomization (RAR) uses accumulating data to weigh the randomization of remaining patients in favour of the better performing treatment. The aim is to reduce the number of failures within the trial. However, many well-known RAR designs, in particular, the randomized play-the-winner-rule (RPWR), have a highly myopic structure which has sometimes led to unfortunate randomization sequences when used in practice. This paper introduces random permuted blocks into two RAR designs, the RPWR and sequential maximum likelihood estimation, for trials with a binary endpoint. Allocation ratios within each block are restricted to be one of 1:1, 2:1 or 3:1, preventing unfortunate randomization sequences. Exact calculations are performed to determine error rates and expected number of failures across a range of trial scenarios. The results presented show that when compared with equal allocation, block RAR designs give similar reductions in the expected number of failures to their unmodified counterparts. The reductions are typically modest under the alternative hypothesis but become more impressive if the treatment effect exceeds the clinically relevant difference.     

A temporal correlation function for the association between patient‐reported outcome and clinical endpoints

For clinical trials with multiple endpoints, the primary interest is usually to evaluate the relationship of these endpoints and treatment interventions. Studying the correlation of two clinical trial endpoints can also be of interests. For example, the association between patient‐reported outcome and clinically assessed endpoint could answer important research questions and also generate interesting hypothesis for future research. However, it is not straightforward to quantify such association. In this article, we proposed a multiple event approach to profile such association with a temporal correlation function, visualized by a correlation function plot over time with a confidence band. We developed this approach by extending the existing methodology in recurrent event literature. This approach was shown to be generally unbiased and could be a useful tool for data visualization and inference. We demonstrated the use of this method with data from a real clinical trial. Although this approach was developed to evaluate the association between patient‐reported outcome and adverse events, it can also be used to evaluate the association of any two endpoints that can be translated to time‐to‐event endpoints. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Study design of single‐arm phase II immunotherapy trials with long‐term survivors and random delayed treatment effect

In the traditional study design of a single‐arm phase II cancer clinical trial, the one‐sample log‐rank test has been frequently used. A common practice in sample size calculation is to assume that the event time in the new treatment follows exponential distribution. Such a study design may not be suitable for immunotherapy cancer trials, when both long‐term survivors (or even cured patients from the disease) and delayed treatment effect are present, because exponential distribution is not appropriate to describe such data and consequently could lead to severely underpowered trial. In this research, we proposed a piecewise proportional hazards cure rate model with random delayed treatment effect to design single‐arm phase II immunotherapy cancer trials. To improve test power, we proposed a new weighted one‐sample log‐rank test and provided a sample size calculation formula for designing trials. Our simulation study showed that the proposed log‐rank test performs well and is robust of misspecified weight and the sample size calculation formula also performs well.     

Estimand framework: Are we asking the right questions? A case study in the solid tumor setting

The estimand framework requires a precise definition of the clinical question of interest (the estimand) as different ways of accounting for “intercurrent” events post randomization may result in different scientific questions. The initiation of subsequent therapy is common in oncology clinical trials and is considered an intercurrent event if the start of such therapy occurs prior to a recurrence or progression event. Three possible ways to account for this intercurrent event in the analysis are to censor at initiation, consider recurrence or progression events (including death) that occur before and after the initiation of subsequent therapy, or consider the start of subsequent therapy as an event in and of itself. The new estimand framework clarifies that these analyses address different questions (“does the drug delay recurrence if no patient had received subsequent therapy?” vs “does the drug delay recurrence with or without subsequent therapy?” vs “does the drug delay recurrence or start of subsequent therapy?”). The framework facilitates discussions during clinical trial planning and design to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. This article is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Council for Harmonisation E9 addendum concepts to applications. Data from previously reported randomized phase 3 studies in the renal cell carcinoma setting are used to consider common intercurrent events in solid tumor studies, and to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.     

A flexible multi‐domain test with adaptive weights and its application to clinical trials

The design of a clinical trial is often complicated by the multi‐systemic nature of the disease; a single endpoint often cannot capture the spectrum of potential therapeutic benefits. Multi‐domain outcomes which take into account patient heterogeneity of disease presentation through measurements of multiple symptom/functional domains are an attractive alternative to a single endpoint. A multi‐domain test with adaptive weights is proposed to synthesize the evidence of treatment efficacy over numerous disease domains. The test is a weighted sum of domain‐specific test statistics with weights selected adaptively via a data‐driven algorithm. The null distribution of the test statistic is constructed empirically through resampling and does not require estimation of the covariance structure of domain‐specific test statistics. Simulations show that the proposed test controls the type I error rate, and has increased power over other methods such as the O'Brien and Wei‐Lachin tests in scenarios reflective of clinical trial settings. Data from a clinical trial in a rare lysosomal storage disorder were used to illustrate the properties of the proposed test. As a strategy of combining marginal test statistics, the proposed test is flexible and readily applicable to a variety of clinical trial scenarios.     

Competing risk analysis in a large cardiovascular clinical trial: An APEX substudy

Competing risk methods are time‐to‐event analyses that account for fatal and/or nonfatal events that may potentially alter or prevent a subject from experiencing the primary endpoint. Competing risk methods may provide a more accurate and less biased estimate of the incidence of an outcome but are rarely applied in cardiology trials. APEX investigated the efficacy of extended‐duration betrixaban versus standard‐duration enoxaparin to prevent a composite of symptomatic deep‐vein thrombosis (proximal or distal), nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or venous thromboembolism (VTE)–related death in acute medically ill patients (n = 7513). The aim of the current analysis was to determine the efficacy of betrixaban vs standard‐duration enoxaparin accounting for non‐VTE–related deaths using the Fine and Gray method for competing risks. The proportion of non‐VTE–related death was similar in both the betrixaban (133, 3.6%) and enoxaparin (136, 3.7%) arms, P = .85. Both the traditional Kaplan‐Meier method and the Fine and Gray method accounting for non‐VTE–related death as a competing risk showed equal reduction of VTE events when comparing betrixaban to enoxaparin (HR/SHR = 0.65, 95% 0.42‐0.99, P = 0.046). Due to the similar proportion of non‐VTE–related deaths in both treatment arms and the use of a univariate model, the Fine and Gray method provided identical results to the traditional Cox model. Using the Fine and Gray method in addition to the traditional Cox proportional hazards method can indicate whether the presence of a competing risk, which is dependent of the outcome, altered the risk estimate.     

Sample size calculation for recurrent events data in one‐arm studies

In some exceptional circumstances, as in very rare diseases, nonrandomized one‐arm trials are the sole source of evidence to demonstrate efficacy and safety of a new treatment. The design of such studies needs a sound methodological approach in order to provide reliable information, and the determination of the appropriate sample size still represents a critical step of this planning process. As, to our knowledge, no method exists for sample size calculation in one‐arm trials with a recurrent event endpoint, we propose here a closed sample size formula. It is derived assuming a mixed Poisson process, and it is based on the asymptotic distribution of the one‐sample robust nonparametric test recently developed for the analysis of recurrent events data. The validity of this formula in managing a situation with heterogeneity of event rates, both in time and between patients, and time‐varying treatment effect was demonstrated with exhaustive simulation studies. Moreover, although the method requires the specification of a process for events generation, it seems to be robust under erroneous definition of this process, provided that the number of events at the end of the study is similar to the one assumed in the planning phase. The motivating clinical context is represented by a nonrandomized one‐arm study on gene therapy in a very rare immunodeficiency in children (ADA‐SCID), where a major endpoint is the recurrence of severe infections. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Design considerations in clinical trials with cure rate survival data: A case study in oncology

For clinical trials with time‐to‐event as the primary endpoint, the clinical cutoff is often event‐driven and the log‐rank test is the most commonly used statistical method for evaluating treatment effect. However, this method relies on the proportional hazards assumption in that it has the maximal power in this circumstance. In certain disease areas or populations, some patients can be curable and never experience the events despite a long follow‐up. The event accumulation may dry out after a certain period of follow‐up and the treatment effect could be reflected as the combination of improvement of cure rate and the delay of events for those uncurable patients. Study power depends on both cure rate improvement and hazard reduction. In this paper, we illustrate these practical issues using simulation studies and explore sample size recommendations, alternative ways for clinical cutoffs, and efficient testing methods with the highest study power possible.     

Phase II trial design with growth modulation index as the primary endpoint

Molecularly targeted, genomic‐driven, and immunotherapy‐based clinical trials continue to be advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where the growth modulation index (GMI) is often considered a primary endpoint of treatment efficacy. However, there little literature is available that considers the trial design with GMI as the primary endpoint. In this article, we derived a sample size formula for the score test under a log‐linear model of the GMI. Study designs using the derived sample size formula are illustrated under a bivariate exponential model, the Weibull frailty model, and the generalized treatment effect size. The proposed designs provide sound statistical methods for a single‐arm phase II trial with GMI as the primary endpoint.     

Comparison of the restricted mean survival time with the hazard ratio in superiority trials with a time‐to‐event end point

With the emergence of novel therapies exhibiting distinct mechanisms of action compared to traditional treatments, departure from the proportional hazard (PH) assumption in clinical trials with a time‐to‐event end point is increasingly common. In these situations, the hazard ratio may not be a valid statistical measurement of treatment effect, and the log‐rank test may no longer be the most powerful statistical test. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) is an alternative robust and clinically interpretable summary measure that does not rely on the PH assumption. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate the performance and operating characteristics of the RMST‐based inference and against the hazard ratio–based inference, under various scenarios and design parameter setups. The log‐rank test is generally a powerful test when there is evident separation favoring 1 treatment arm at most of the time points across the Kaplan‐Meier survival curves, but the performance of the RMST test is similar. Under non‐PH scenarios where late separation of survival curves is observed, the RMST‐based test has better performance than the log‐rank test when the truncation time is reasonably close to the tail of the observed curves. Furthermore, when flat survival tail (or low event rate) in the experimental arm is expected, selecting the minimum of the maximum observed event time as the truncation timepoint for the RMST is not recommended. In addition, we recommend the inclusion of analysis based on the RMST curve over the truncation time in clinical settings where there is suspicion of substantial departure from the PH assumption.