Dataset Information

Adaptive group sequential survival comparisons based on log-rank and pointwise test statistics.

ABSTRACT: Whereas the theory of confirmatory adaptive designs is well understood for uncensored data, implementation of adaptive designs in the context of survival trials remains challenging. Commonly used adaptive survival tests are based on the independent increments structure of the log-rank statistic. This implies some relevant limitations: On the one hand, essentially only the interim log-rank statistic may be used for design modifications (such as data-dependent sample size recalculation). Furthermore, the treatment arm allocation ratio in these classical methods is assumed to be constant throughout the trial period. Here, we propose an extension of the independent increments approach to adaptive survival tests that addresses some of these limitations. We present a confirmatory adaptive two-sample log-rank test that allows rejection regions and sample size recalculation rules to be based not only on the interim log-rank statistic, but also on point-wise survival rate estimates, simultaneously. In addition, the possibility is opened to adapt the treatment arm allocation ratio after each interim analysis in a data-dependent way. The ability to include point-wise survival rate estimators in the rejection region of a test for comparing survival curves might be attractive, e.g., for seamless phase II/III designs. Data-dependent adaptation of the allocation ratio could be helpful in multi-arm trials in order to successively steer recruitment into the study arms with the greatest chances of success. The methodology is motivated by the LOGGIC Europe Trial from pediatric oncology. Distributional properties are derived using martingale techniques in the large sample limit. Small sample properties are studied by simulation.

SUBMITTER: Feld J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe log-rank test is considered the criterion standard for comparing 2 survival curves in pivotal registrational trials. However, with novel immunotherapies that often violate the proportional hazards assumptions over time, log-rank can lose power and may fail to detect treatment benefit. The MaxCombo test, a combination of weighted log-rank tests, retains power under different types of nonproportional hazards. The difference in restricted mean survival time (dRMST) test is frequently proposed as an alternative to the log-rank under nonproportional hazard scenarios.ObjectiveTo compare the log-rank with the MaxCombo and dRMST in immuno-oncology trials to evaluate their performance in practice.Data sourcesComprehensive literature review using Google Scholar, PubMed, and other sources for randomized clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at major clinical conferences before December 2019 assessing efficacy of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 or anti-programmed death/ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies.Study selectionPivotal studies with overall survival or progression-free survival as the primary or key secondary end point with a planned statistical comparison in the protocol. Sixty-three studies on anti-programmed cell death protein-1 or anti-programmed death/ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in 35 902 patients across multiple solid tumor types were identified.Data extraction and synthesisStatistical comparisons (n = 150) were made between the 3 tests using the analysis populations as defined in the original protocol of each trial.Main outcomes and measuresNominal significance based on a 2-sided .05-level test was used to evaluate concordance. Case studies featuring different types of nonproportional hazards were used to discuss more robust ways of characterizing treatment benefit instead of sole reliance on hazard ratios.ResultsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 studies including 35 902 patients, between the log-rank and MaxCombo, 135 of 150 comparisons (90%) were concordant; MaxCombo achieved nominal significance in 15 of 15 discordant cases, while log-rank did not. Several cases appeared to have clinically meaningful benefits that would not have been detected using log-rank. Between the log-rank and dRMST tests, 137 of 150 comparisons (91%) were concordant; log-rank was nominally significant in 5 of 13 cases, while dRMST was significant in 8 of 13. Among all 3 tests, 127 comparisons (85%) were concordant.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this review show that MaxCombo may provide a pragmatic alternative to log-rank when departure from proportional hazards is anticipated. Both tests resulted in the same statistical decision in most comparisons. Discordant studies had modest to meaningful improvements in treatment effect. The dRMST test provided no added sensitivity for detecting treatment differences over log-rank.

Dataset Information

Adaptive group sequential survival comparisons based on log-rank and pointwise test statistics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets