Dataset Information

Correlation of Milestone Restricted Mean Survival Time Ratio With Overall Survival Hazard Ratio in Randomized Clinical Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unique patterns of response and survival that differ from conventional chemotherapies. Novel intermediate end points are urgently required to detect the early signals of ICI activity.

Objective

To evaluate milestone rate (Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival probabilities at given time points) and milestone restricted mean survival time (RMST, the area under survival curves up to given time points) as potential intermediate end points for ICI trials.

Data sources

Electronic databases (pre-MEDLINE, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized clinical trials published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017.

Study selection

Phase 2 and phase 3 randomized clinical trials evaluating ICIs in advanced solid tumors.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two investigators extracted the data and reconstructed individual patient data to estimate the milestone rate or milestone RMST from the published Kaplan-Meier curves.

Main outcomes and measures

Trial-level milestone rates or milestone RMSTs were estimated for 6-month and 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) and 9-month and 12-month overall survival (OS). A weighted linear regression model evaluated the correlations of ratios of milestone rates or milestone RMSTs with OS hazard ratios (HRs).

Results

Twenty-six trials examining 8 different tumor types were identified, including 12?892 patients. Overall survival HR was correlated with the ratio of 9-month OS milestone rate (R2?=?0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.74), and with the ratio of 12-month OS milestone rate (R2?=?0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.70). The ratio of 9-month OS milestone RMST (R2?=?0.60; 95% CI, 0.28-0.74) and ratio of 12-month OS milestone RMST were correlated with OS HR (R2?=?0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.78). No correlations were observed between OS HR and the ratio of 6-month or 9-month PFS milestone rates or milestone RMSTs.

Conclusions and relevance

Ratios of OS milestone RMSTs had a stronger correlation with OS HRs than ratios of OS milestone rates, whereas ratios of PFS milestone rates and ratios of PFS milestone RMSTs were not correlated with OS HRs. The OS milestone RMST could be further studied as an intermediate end point in future ICI trials.

SUBMITTER: Wang ZX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6503508 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhen data is distributed across multiple sites, sharing information at the individual level among sites may be difficult. In these multi-site studies, propensity score model can be fitted with data within each site or data from all sites when using inverse probability-weighted Cox regression to estimate overall hazard ratio. However, when there is unknown heterogeneity of covariates in different sites, either approach may lead to potential bias or reduced efficiency. In this study, we proposed a method to estimate propensity score based on covariate balance-related criterion and estimate the overall hazard ratio while overcoming data sharing constraints across sites.MethodsThe proposed propensity score was generated by choosing between global and local propensity score based on covariate balance-related criterion, combining the global propensity score fitted in the entire population and the local propensity score fitted within each site. We used this proposed propensity score to estimate overall hazard ratio of distributed survival data with multiple sites, while requiring only the summary-level information across sites. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. Besides, we applied the proposed method to real-world data to examine the effect of radiation therapy on time to death among breast cancer patients.ResultsThe simulation studies showed that the proposed method improved the performance in estimating overall hazard ratio comparing with global and local propensity score method, regardless of the number of sites and sample size in each site. Similar results were observed under both homogeneous and heterogeneous settings. Besides, the proposed method yielded identical results to the pooled individual-level data analysis. The real-world data analysis indicated that the proposed method was more likely to find a significant effect of radiation therapy on mortality compared to the global propensity score method and local propensity score method.ConclusionsThe proposed covariate balance-related propensity score in multi-site distributed survival data outperformed the global propensity score estimated using data from the entire population or the local propensity score estimated within each site in estimating the overall hazard ratio. The proposed approach can be performed without individual-level data transfer between sites and would yield the same results as the corresponding pooled individual-level data analysis.

Project description:BackgroundRestricted mean survival time is a measure of average survival time up to a specified time point. There has been an increased interest in using restricted mean survival time to compare treatment arms in randomized clinical trials because such comparisons do not rely on proportional hazards or other assumptions about the nature of the relationship between survival curves.MethodsThis article addresses the question of whether covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials that compare restricted mean survival times improves precision of the estimated treatment effect (difference in restricted mean survival times between treatment arms). Although precision generally increases in linear models when prognostic covariates are added, this is not necessarily the case in non-linear models. For example, in logistic and Cox regression, the standard error of the estimated treatment effect does not decrease when prognostic covariates are added, although the situation is complicated in those settings because the estimand changes as well. Because estimation of restricted mean survival time in the manner described in this article is also based on a model that is non-linear in the covariates, we investigate whether the comparison of restricted mean survival times with adjustment for covariates leads to a reduction in the standard error of the estimated treatment effect relative to the unadjusted estimator or whether covariate adjustment provides no improvement in precision. Chen and Tsiatis suggest that precision will increase if covariates are chosen judiciously. We present results of simulation studies that compare unadjusted versus adjusted comparisons of restricted mean survival time between treatment arms in randomized clinical trials.ResultsWe find that for comparison of restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for covariates that are associated with survival increases precision and therefore statistical power, relative to the unadjusted estimator. Omitting important covariates results in less precision but estimates remain unbiased.ConclusionWhen comparing restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for prognostic covariates can improve precision and increase power.

Project description:Background/aims Non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes are becoming increasingly common. Designing non-inferiority trials is challenging, in particular, they require very large sample sizes. We hypothesized that the difference in restricted mean survival time, an alternative to the hazard ratio, could lead to smaller required sample sizes. Methods We show how to convert a margin for the hazard ratio into a margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time and how to calculate the required sample size under a Weibull survival distribution. We systematically selected non-inferiority trials published between 2013 and 2016 in seven major journals. Based on the protocol and article of each trial, we determined the clinically relevant time horizon of interest. We reconstructed individual patient data for the primary outcome and fit a Weibull distribution to the comparator arm. We converted the margin for the hazard ratio into the margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time. We tested for non-inferiority using the difference in restricted mean survival time and hazard ratio. We determined the required sample size based on both measures, using the type I error risk and power from the original trial design. Results We included 35 trials. We found evidence of non-proportional hazards in five (14%) trials. The hazard ratio and the difference in restricted mean survival time were consistent regarding non-inferiority testing, except in one trial where the difference in restricted mean survival time led to evidence of non-inferiority while the hazard ratio did not. The median hazard ratio margin was 1.43 (Q1-Q3, 1.29-1.75). The median of the corresponding margins for the difference in restricted mean survival time was -21?days (Q1-Q3, -36 to -8) for a median time horizon of 2.0?years (Q1-Q3, 1-3?years). The required sample size according to the difference in restricted mean survival time was smaller in 71% of trials, with a median relative decrease of 8.5% (Q1-Q3, 0.4%-38.0%). Across all 35 trials, about 25,000 participants would have been spared from enrollment using the difference in restricted mean survival time compared to hazard ratio for trial design. Conclusion The margins for the hazard ratio may seem large but translate to relatively small differences in restricted mean survival time. The difference in restricted mean survival time offers meaningful interpretation and can result in considerable reductions in sample size. Restricted mean survival time-based measures should be considered more widely in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes.