Imputing missing quality of life data as covariate in survival analysis of the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VI and VII

Quality of life (QoL) was an important endpoint in the adjuvant breast cancer trials International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial VI and VII. Here, QoL was considered as a time-dependent effect. The hypothesis explored is that poorer QoL throughout the trial is associated with poorer disease-free survival (DFS) and vice-versa. Potential bias in the parameter estimates is an important concern associated with missing observations. Standard simple and multiple imputation methods were applied to missing QoL assessments before analysis in a time-dependent Cox model. There was no evidence that the patient's QoL is related to the patient's DFS.     

Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design

In clinical trials with survival data, investigators may wish to re-estimate the sample size based on the observed effect size while the trial is ongoing. Besides the inflation of the type-I error rate due to sample size re-estimation, the method for calculating the sample size in an interim analysis should be carefully considered because the data in each stage are mutually dependent in trials with survival data. Although the interim hazard estimate is commonly used to re-estimate the sample size, the estimate can sometimes be considerably higher or lower than the hypothesized hazard by chance. We propose an interim hazard ratio estimate that can be used to re-estimate the sample size under those circumstances. The proposed method was demonstrated through a simulation study and an actual clinical trial as an example. The effect of the shape parameter for the Weibull survival distribution on the sample size re-estimation is presented.     

Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer

Sargent et al (J Clin Oncol 23: 8664–8670, 2005) concluded that 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) can be considered a valid surrogate (replacement) endpoint for 5-year overall survival (OS) in clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. We address the question whether the conclusion holds for trials involving other classes of treatments than those considered by Sargent et al. Additionally, we assess if the 3-year cutpoint is an optimal one. To this aim, we investigate whether the results reported by Sargent et al. could have been used to predict treatment effects in three centrally randomized adjuvant colorectal cancer trials performed by the Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment for Cancer (JFMTC) (Sakamoto et al. J Clin Oncol 22:484–492, 2004). Our analysis supports the conclusion of Sargent et al. and shows that using DFS at 2 or 3 years would be the best option for the prediction of OS at 5 years.     

A Statistical Issue About a Phase III Multi-regional Trial for the Survival Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model with Unrecognized Heterogeneity

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample size determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this article, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the accelerated failure time model to design a multi-regional trial for a phase III clinical trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend is used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

An Approach to Determine Sample Size and to Allocate Sample Size for a Specific Region in a Multiregional Trial for Survival (Time-to-Event) Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time (AFT) model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this paper, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the AFT model to design a multiregional trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multiregional trial, and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Strengthening the understanding of the relationship between survival designs and test statistics

In the planning of randomized survival trials, the role of follow‐up time of trial participants introduces a level of complexity not encountered in non‐survival trials. Of the two commonly used survival designs, one design fixes the follow‐up time whereas the other allows it to vary. When the follow‐up time is fixed the number of events varies. Conversely, when the number of events is fixed, the follow‐up time varies. These two designs influence test statistics in ways that have not been fully explored resulting in a misunderstanding of the design–test statistic relationship. We use examples from the literature to strengthen the understanding of this relationship. Group sequential trials are briefly discussed. When the number of events is fixed, we demonstrate why a two‐sample risk difference test statistic reduces to a one‐sample test statistic which is nearly equal to the risk ratio test statistic. Some aspects of fixed event designs that need further consideration are also discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A flexible parametric survival model for fitting time to event data in clinical trials

Time‐to‐event data are common in clinical trials to evaluate survival benefit of a new drug, biological product, or device. The commonly used parametric models including exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log‐logistic, log‐normal, are simply not flexible enough to capture complex survival curves observed in clinical and medical research studies. On the other hand, the nonparametric Kaplan Meier (KM) method is very flexible and successful on catching the various shapes in the survival curves but lacks ability in predicting the future events such as the time for certain number of events and the number of events at certain time and predicting the risk of events (eg, death) over time beyond the span of the available data from clinical trials. It is obvious that neither the nonparametric KM method nor the current parametric distributions can fulfill the needs in fitting survival curves with the useful characteristics for predicting. In this paper, a full parametric distribution constructed as a mixture of three components of Weibull distribution is explored and recommended to fit the survival data, which is as flexible as KM for the observed data but have the nice features beyond the trial time, such as predicting future events, survival probability, and hazard function.     

Determination of hazard ratio for progression‐free survival considering the tumor assessment schedule in sample size calculation

Progression‐free survival is recognized as an important endpoint in oncology clinical trials. In clinical trials aimed at new drug development, the target population often comprises patients that are refractory to standard therapy with a tumor that shows rapid progression. This situation would increase the bias of the hazard ratio calculated for progression‐free survival, resulting in decreased power for such patients. Therefore, new measures are needed to prevent decreasing the power in advance when estimating the sample size. Here, I propose a novel calculation procedure to assume the hazard ratio for progression‐free survival using the Cox proportional hazards model, which can be applied in sample size calculation. The hazard ratios derived by the proposed procedure were almost identical to those obtained by simulation. The hazard ratio calculated by the proposed procedure is applicable to sample size calculation and coincides with the nominal power. Methods that compensate for the lack of power due to biases in the hazard ratio are also discussed from a practical point of view.     

A Bayesian approach to Weibull survival models—Application to a cancer clinical trial

In this paper we outline a class of fully parametric proportional hazards models, in which the baseline hazard is assumed to be a power transform of the time scale, corresponding to assuming that survival times follow a Weibull distribution. Such a class of models allows for the possibility of time varying hazard rates, but assumes a constant hazard ratio. We outline how Bayesian inference proceeds for such a class of models using asymptotic approximations which require only the ability to maximize the joint log posterior density. We apply these models to a clinical trial to assess the efficacy of neutron therapy compared to conventional treatment for patients with tumors of the pelvic region. In this trial there was prior information about the log hazard ratio both in terms of elicited clinical beliefs and the results of previous studies. Finally, we consider a number of extensions to this class of models, in particular the use of alternative baseline functions, and the extension to multi-state data.     

Comparing crossing hazard rate functions by joint modelling of survival and longitudinal data

Abstract

It is one of the important issues in survival analysis to compare two hazard rate functions to evaluate treatment effect. It is quite common that the two hazard rate functions cross each other at one or more unknown time points, representing temporal changes of the treatment effect. In certain applications, besides survival data, we also have related longitudinal data available regarding some time-dependent covariates. In such cases, a joint model that accommodates both types of data can allow us to infer the association between the survival and longitudinal data and to assess the treatment effect better. In this paper, we propose a modelling approach for comparing two crossing hazard rate functions by joint modelling survival and longitudinal data. Maximum likelihood estimation is used in estimating the parameters of the proposed joint model using the EM algorithm. Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimators are studied. To illustrate the virtues of the proposed method, we compare the performance of the proposed method with several existing methods in a simulation study. Our proposed method is also demonstrated using a real dataset obtained from an HIV clinical trial.     

Semiparametric inference on the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference

For time-to-event data, when the hazards are non-proportional, in addition to the hazard ratio, the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference can be used to describe the time-dependent treatment effect. The absolute risk reduction measures the direct impact of the treatment on event rate or survival, and the restricted mean survival difference provides a way to evaluate the cumulative treatment effect. However, in the literature, available methods are limited for flexibly estimating these measures and making inference on them. In this article, point estimates, pointwise confidence intervals and simultaneous confidence bands of the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference are established under a semiparametric model that can be used in a sufficiently wide range of applications. These methods are motivated by and illustrated for data from the Women’s Health Initiative estrogen plus progestin clinical trial.     

A weighted log-rank test and associated effect estimator for cancer trials with delayed treatment effect

The standard log-rank test has been extended by adopting various weight functions. Cancer vaccine or immunotherapy trials have shown a delayed onset of effect for the experimental therapy. This is manifested as a delayed separation of the survival curves. This work proposes new weighted log-rank tests to account for such delay. The weight function is motivated by the time-varying hazard ratio between the experimental and the control therapies. We implement a numerical evaluation of the Schoenfeld approximation (NESA) for the mean of the test statistic. The NESA enables us to assess the power and to calculate the sample size for detecting such delayed treatment effect and also for a more general specification of the non-proportional hazards in a trial. We further show a connection between our proposed test and the weighted Cox regression. Then the average hazard ratio using the same weight is obtained as an estimand of the treatment effect. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to compare the performance of the proposed tests with the standard log-rank test and to assess their robustness to model mis-specifications. Our tests outperform the G^ρ,γ class in general and have performance close to the optimal test. We demonstrate our methods on two cancer immunotherapy trials.     

Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints and limited sample size

The stratified Cox model is commonly used for stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints. The estimated log hazard ratio is approximately a weighted average of corresponding stratum‐specific Cox model estimates using inverse‐variance weights; the latter are optimal only under the (often implausible) assumption of a constant hazard ratio across strata. Focusing on trials with limited sample sizes (50‐200 subjects per treatment), we propose an alternative approach in which stratum‐specific estimates are obtained using a refined generalized logrank (RGLR) approach and then combined using either sample size or minimum risk weights for overall inference. Our proposal extends the work of Mehrotra et al, to incorporate the RGLR statistic, which outperforms the Cox model in the setting of proportional hazards and small samples. This work also entails development of a remarkably accurate plug‐in formula for the variance of RGLR‐based estimated log hazard ratios. We demonstrate using simulations that our proposed two‐step RGLR analysis delivers notably better results through smaller estimation bias and mean squared error and larger power than the stratified Cox model analysis when there is a treatment‐by‐stratum interaction, with similar performance when there is no interaction. Additionally, our method controls the type I error rate while the stratified Cox model does not in small samples. We illustrate our method using data from a clinical trial comparing two treatments for colon cancer.     

Estimation of survival quantiles in two-stage randomization designs

In two-stage randomization designs, patients are randomized to one or more available therapies upon entry into the study. Depending on the response to the initial treatment (such as complete remission or shrinkage of tumor), patients are then randomized to receive maintenance treatments to maintain the response or salvage treatment to induce response. One goal of such trials is to compare the combinations of initial and maintenance or salvage therapies in the form of treatment strategies. In cases where the endpoint is defined as overall survival, Lunceford et al. [2002. Estimation of survival distributions of treatment policies in two-stage and randomization designs in clinical trials. Biometrics 58, 48–57] used mean survival time and pointwise survival probability to compare treatment strategies. But, mean survival time or survival probability at a specific time may not be a good summary representative of the overall distribution when the data are skewed or contain influential tail observations. In this article, we propose consistent and asymptotic normal estimators for percentiles of survival curves under various treatment strategies and demonstrate the use of percentiles for comparing treatment strategies. Small sample properties of these estimators are investigated using simulation. We demonstrate our methods by applying them to a leukemia clinical trial data set that motivated this research.     

A family of multiplicative survival models incorporating a long-term survivorship parameter c as a function of covariates

A family of multiplicative survival models is obtained for the analysis of clinical trial data in which a substantial proportion c of patients respond favorably to treatment with longterm survivorship. The model (MWSM) representing the hazard function for all patients as a function of c and a Weibull density is developed in which the distributional parameters and c are regressed on covariates and estimated by the method of maximum likelihood. The MWSM hazard function is monotonically increasing, peaking, then decreasing thereafter if the shape parameter exceeds unity, and is monotonically decreasing otherwise. Mortality rates with similar behavior have been empirically observed in cancer clinical trial data. A nonproportional or proportional hazards model results depending upon whether or not any Weibull parameter is regressed on covariates. Tests of hypotheses and confidence intervals for c and p-quantiles are obtained.     

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.     

A meta-analytic framework to adjust for bias in external control studies

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating treatment effects in medical research, there is increasing use of and interest in using real-world data for drug development. One such use case is the construction of external control arms for evaluation of efficacy in single-arm trials, particularly in cases where randomization is either infeasible or unethical. However, it is well known that treated patients in non-randomized studies may not be comparable to control patients—on either measured or unmeasured variables—and that the underlying population differences between the two groups may result in biased treatment effect estimates as well as increased variability in estimation. To address these challenges for analyses of time-to-event outcomes, we developed a meta-analytic framework that uses historical reference studies to adjust a log hazard ratio estimate in a new external control study for its additional bias and variability. The set of historical studies is formed by constructing external control arms for historical RCTs, and a meta-analysis compares the trial controls to the external control arms. Importantly, a prospective external control study can be performed independently of the meta-analysis using standard causal inference techniques for observational data. We illustrate our approach with a simulation study and an empirical example based on reference studies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. In our empirical analysis, external control patients had lower survival than trial controls (hazard ratio: 0.907), but our methodology is able to correct for this bias. An implementation of our approach is available in the R package ecmeta .     

Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes,without assuming proportional hazards

We present a new estimator of the restricted mean survival time in randomized trials where there is right censoring that may depend on treatment and baseline variables. The proposed estimator leverages prognostic baseline variables to obtain equal or better asymptotic precision compared to traditional estimators. Under regularity conditions and random censoring within strata of treatment and baseline variables, the proposed estimator has the following features: (i) it is interpretable under violations of the proportional hazards assumption; (ii) it is consistent and at least as precise as the Kaplan–Meier and inverse probability weighted estimators, under identifiability conditions; (iii) it remains consistent under violations of independent censoring (unlike the Kaplan–Meier estimator) when either the censoring or survival distributions, conditional on covariates, are estimated consistently; and (iv) it achieves the nonparametric efficiency bound when both of these distributions are consistently estimated. We illustrate the performance of our method using simulations based on resampling data from a completed, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of a new surgical treatment for stroke; the proposed estimator achieves a 12% gain in relative efficiency compared to the Kaplan–Meier estimator. The proposed estimator has potential advantages over existing approaches for randomized trials with time-to-event outcomes, since existing methods either rely on model assumptions that are untenable in many applications, or lack some of the efficiency and consistency properties (i)–(iv). We focus on estimation of the restricted mean survival time, but our methods may be adapted to estimate any treatment effect measure defined as a smooth contrast between the survival curves for each study arm. We provide R code to implement the estimator.

     

Model free audit methodology for bias evaluation of tumour progression in oncology

Many oncology studies incorporate a blinded independent central review (BICR) to make an assessment of the integrity of the primary endpoint, progression free survival. Recently, it has been suggested that, in order to assess the potential for bias amongst investigators, a BICR amongst only a sample of patients could be performed; if evidence of bias is detected, according to a predefined threshold, the BICR is then assessed in all patients, otherwise, it is concluded that the sample was sufficient to rule out meaningful levels of bias. In this paper, we present an approach that adapts a method originally created for defining futility bounds in group sequential designs. The hazard ratio ratio, the ratio of the hazard ratio (HR) for the treatment effect estimated from the BICR to the corresponding HR for the investigator assessments, is used as the metric to define bias. The approach is simple to implement and ensures a high probability that a substantial true bias will be detected. In the absence of bias, there is a high probability of accepting the accuracy of local evaluations based on the sample, in which case an expensive BICR of all patients is avoided. The properties of the approach are demonstrated by retrospective application to a completed Phase III trial in colorectal cancer. The same approach could easily be adapted for other disease settings, and for test statistics other than the hazard ratio. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Using marginal structural models to analyze the impact of subsequent therapy on the treatment effect in survival data: Simulations and clinical trial examples

We explore the impact of time-varying subsequent therapy on the statistical power and treatment effects in survival analysis. The marginal structural model (MSM) with stabilized inverse probability treatment weights (sIPTW) was used to account for the effects due to the subsequent therapy. Simulations were performed to compare the MSM-sIPTW method with the conventional method without accounting for the time-varying covariate such as subsequent therapy that is dependent on the initial response of the treatment effect. The results of the simulations indicated that the statistical power, thereby the Type I error, of the trials to detect the frontline treatment effect could be inflated if no appropriate adjustment was made for the impact due to the add-on effects of the subsequent therapy. Correspondingly, the hazard ratio between the treatment groups may be overestimated by the conventional analysis methods. In contrast, MSM-sIPTW can maintain the Type I error rate and gave unbiased estimates of the hazard ratio for the treatment. Two real examples were used to discuss the potential clinical implications. The study demonstrated the importance of accounting for time-varying subsequent therapy for obtaining unbiased interpretation of data.