Sample size calculation for the one‐sample log‐rank test

In this paper, an exact variance of the one‐sample log‐rank test statistic is derived under the alternative hypothesis, and a sample size formula is proposed based on the derived exact variance. Simulation results showed that the proposed sample size formula provides adequate power to design a study to compare the survival of a single sample with that of a standard population. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of sample size formulae for 2 × 2 cross‐over designs applied to bioequivalence studies

We consider the comparison of two formulations in terms of average bioequivalence using the 2 × 2 cross‐over design. In a bioequivalence study, the primary outcome is a pharmacokinetic measure, such as the area under the plasma concentration by time curve, which is usually assumed to have a lognormal distribution. The criterion typically used for claiming bioequivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means should lie within the interval (0.80, 1.25), or equivalently the 90% confidence interval for the differences in the means on the natural log scale should be within the interval (?0.2231, 0.2231). We compare the gold standard method for calculation of the sample size based on the non‐central t distribution with those based on the central t and normal distributions. In practice, the differences between the various approaches are likely to be small. Further approximations to the power function are sometimes used to simplify the calculations. These approximations should be used with caution, because the sample size required for a desirable level of power might be under‐ or overestimated compared to the gold standard method. However, in some situations the approximate methods produce very similar sample sizes to the gold standard method. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Weighted log‐rank test for time‐to‐event data in immunotherapy trials with random delayed treatment effect and cure rate

A cancer clinical trial with an immunotherapy often has 2 special features, which are patients being potentially cured from the cancer and the immunotherapy starting to take clinical effect after a certain delay time. Existing testing methods may be inadequate for immunotherapy clinical trials, because they do not appropriately take the 2 features into consideration at the same time, hence have low power to detect the true treatment effect. In this paper, we proposed a piece‐wise proportional hazards cure rate model with a random delay time to fit data, and a new weighted log‐rank test to detect the treatment effect of an immunotherapy over a chemotherapy control. We showed that the proposed weight was nearly optimal under mild conditions. Our simulation study showed a substantial gain of power in the proposed test over the existing tests and robustness of the test with misspecified weight. We also introduced a sample size calculation formula to design the immunotherapy clinical trials using the proposed weighted log‐rank test.     

Group sequential monitoring based on the weighted log‐rank test statistic with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights in cancer vaccine studies

In recent years, immunological science has evolved, and cancer vaccines are now approved and available for treating existing cancers. Because cancer vaccines require time to elicit an immune response, a delayed treatment effect is expected and is actually observed in drug approval studies. Accordingly, we propose the evaluation of survival endpoints by weighted log‐rank tests with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights. We consider group sequential monitoring, which allows early efficacy stopping, and determine a semiparametric information fraction for the Fleming–Harrington family of weights, which is necessary for the error spending function. Moreover, we give a flexible survival model in cancer vaccine studies that considers not only the delayed treatment effect but also the long‐term survivors. In a Monte Carlo simulation study, we illustrate that when the primary analysis is a weighted log‐rank test emphasizing the late differences, the proposed information fraction can be a useful alternative to the surrogate information fraction, which is proportional to the number of events. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Log‐rank permutation tests for trend: saddlepoint p‐values and survival rate confidence intervals

Suppose p + 1 experimental groups correspond to increasing dose levels of a treatment and all groups are subject to right censoring. In such instances, permutation tests for trend can be performed based on statistics derived from the weighted log‐rank class. This article uses saddlepoint methods to determine the mid‐P‐values for such permutation tests for any test statistic in the weighted log‐rank class. Permutation simulations are replaced by analytical saddlepoint computations which provide extremely accurate mid‐P‐values that are exact for most practical purposes and almost always more accurate than normal approximations. The speed of mid‐P‐value computation allows for the inversion of such tests to determine confidence intervals for the percentage increase in mean (or median) survival time per unit increase in dosage. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 37: 5‐16; 2009 © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada     

An affine‐invariant multivariate sign test for cluster correlated data

The author presents a multivariate location model for cluster correlated observations. He proposes an affine‐invariant multivariate sign statistic for testing the value of the location parameter. His statistic is an adaptation of that proposed by Randles (2000). The author shows, under very mild conditions, that his test statistic is asymptotically distributed as a chi‐squared random variable under the null hypothesis. In particular, the test can be used for skewed populations. In the context of a general multivariate normal model, the author obtains values of his test's Pitman asymptotic efficiency relative to another test based on the overall average. He shows that there is an improvement in the relative performance of the new test as soon as intra‐cluster correlation is present Even in the univariate case, the new test can be very competitive for Gaussian data. Furthermore, the statistic is easy to compute, even for large dimensional data. The author shows through simulations that his test performs well compared to the average‐based test. He illustrates its use with real data.     

EXACT P‐VALUES FOR DISCRETE MODELS OBTAINED BY ESTIMATION AND MAXIMIZATION

In constructing exact tests from discrete data, one must deal with the possible dependence of the P‐value on nuisance parameter(s) ψ as well as the discreteness of the sample space. A classical but heavy‐handed approach is to maximize over ψ. We prove what has previously been understood informally, namely that maximization produces the unique and smallest possible P‐value subject to the ordering induced by the underlying test statistic and test validity. On the other hand, allowing for the worst case will be more attractive when the P‐value is less dependent on ψ. We investigate the extent to which estimating ψ under the null reduces this dependence. An approach somewhere between full maximization and estimation is partial maximization, with appropriate penalty, as introduced by Berger & Boos (1994, P values maximized over a confidence set for the nuisance parameter. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 89 , 1012–1016). It is argued that estimation followed by maximization is an attractive, but computationally more demanding, alternative to partial maximization. We illustrate the ideas on a range of low‐dimensional but important examples for which the alternative methods can be investigated completely numerically.     

START: single‐to‐double arm transition design for phase II clinical trials

Phase II clinical trials designed for evaluating a drug's treatment effect can be either single‐arm or double‐arm. A single‐arm design tests the null hypothesis that the response rate of a new drug is lower than a fixed threshold, whereas a double‐arm scheme takes a more objective comparison of the response rate between the new treatment and the standard of care through randomization. Although the randomized design is the gold standard for efficacy assessment, various situations may arise where a single‐arm pilot study prior to a randomized trial is necessary. To combine the single‐ and double‐arm phases and pool the information together for better decision making, we propose a Single‐To‐double ARm Transition design (START) with switching hypotheses tests, where the first stage compares the new drug's response rate with a minimum required level and imposes a continuation criterion, and the second stage utilizes randomization to determine the treatment's superiority. We develop a software package in R to calibrate the frequentist error rates and perform simulation studies to assess the trial characteristics. Finally, a metastatic pancreatic cancer trial is used for illustrating the decision rules under the proposed START design.     

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short‐term endpoints and prognostic baseline covariates

Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short‐term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short‐term endpoints. We will realize this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long‐term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short‐term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach enables earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size re‐assessment based on the inverse normal P‐value combination method to control Type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial.     

Sample size determination for the weighted log‐rank test with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights in cancer vaccine studies

In recent years, immunological science has evolved, and cancer vaccines are available for treating existing cancers. Because cancer vaccines require time to elicit an immune response, a delayed treatment effect is expected. Accordingly, the use of weighted log‐rank tests with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights is proposed for evaluation of survival endpoints. We present a method for calculating the sample size under assumption of a piecewise exponential distribution for the cancer vaccine group and an exponential distribution for the placebo group as the survival model. The impact of delayed effect timing on both the choice of the Fleming–Harrington's weights and the increment in the required number of events is discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

TITE‐BOIN‐ET: Time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose‐finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de‐escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late‐onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named “TITE‐BOIN‐ET” design, is nonparametric and a model‐assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose‐finding trials compared with the model‐based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design has advantages compared with the model‐based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose‐finding trials.     

Blinded sample size re‐estimation in superiority and noninferiority trials: bias versus variance in variance estimation

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures based on the one‐sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re‐estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re‐estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one‐sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re‐estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one‐sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Shannon Entropy and Mutual Information for Multivariate Skew‐Elliptical Distributions

Abstract. The entropy and mutual information index are important concepts developed by Shannon in the context of information theory. They have been widely studied in the case of the multivariate normal distribution. We first extend these tools to the full symmetric class of multivariate elliptical distributions and then to the more flexible families of multivariate skew‐elliptical distributions. We study in detail the cases of the multivariate skew‐normal and skew‐t distributions. We implement our findings to the application of the optimal design of an ozone monitoring station network in Santiago de Chile.     

Practical guide to sample size calculations: non‐inferiority and equivalence trials

A sample size justification is a vital part of any trial design. However, estimating the number of participants required to give a meaningful result is not always straightforward. A number of components are required to facilitate a suitable sample size calculation. In this paper, the steps for conducting sample size calculations for non‐inferiority and equivalence trials are summarised. Practical advice and examples are provided that illustrate how to carry out the calculations by hand and using the app SampSize. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Carry‐over in cross‐over trials in bioequivalence: theoretical concerns and empirical evidence

There is now general agreement that pre‐testing for carry‐over in the AB/BA design is harmful and that efficient analysis of this design must proceed on the assumption that carry‐over has not affected the results to any appreciable degree. A general consensus has not been achieved in the case of higher‐order designs. Since particular forms of carry‐over can be estimated on a within‐patient basis and unbiased within‐patient treatment estimators are possible, some statisticians favour pre‐testing and some favour automatic adjustment for carry‐over. We present theoretical arguments that show that, just as in the AB/BA case, the strategy of pre‐testing is biased as a whole and also that the loss in terms of efficiency in adjusting is not negligible. We also present data from two large series of bioequivalence studies to provide empirical evidence that in this context carry‐over is either absent or rare. We conclude that adjusting or testing for carry‐over in bioequivalence studies is at worst harmful and at best pointless, and that this may also apply to other kinds of study. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.