Sample Size Calculation Under Nonproportional Hazards Using Average Hazard Ratios

Many clinical trials assess time-to-event endpoints. To describe the difference between groups in terms of time to event, we often employ hazard ratios. However, the hazard ratio is only informative in the case of proportional hazards (PHs) over time. There exist many other effect measures that do not require PHs. One of them is the average hazard ratio (AHR). Its core idea is to utilize a time-dependent weighting function that accounts for time variation. Though propagated in methodological research papers, the AHR is rarely used in practice. To facilitate its application, we unfold approaches for sample size calculation of an AHR test. We assess the reliability of the sample size calculation by extensive simulation studies covering various survival and censoring distributions with proportional as well as nonproportional hazards (N-PHs). The findings suggest that a simulation-based sample size calculation approach can be useful for designing clinical trials with N-PHs. Using the AHR can result in increased statistical power to detect differences between groups with more efficient sample sizes.

Group sequential design with maximin efficiency robust test for immunotherapy with generalized delayed treatment effect

The delayed treatment effect is a common feature of immunotherapy, characterized by a gradual onset of action ranging from no effect to full effect. In this study, we propose a generalized delayed treatment effect function to depict the delayed effective process precisely and flexibly. To reduce potential power loss caused by the delayed treatment effect in a group sequential trial, we employ the maximin efficiency robust test, which enhances power robustness across a range of possible delays. We present novel approaches based on the Markov chain method for determining group sequential boundaries, calculating the power function, and estimating the maximum sample size through iterative regressions between the square root of the maximum sample size and the normal quantile of power. Extensive simulation studies validate the effectiveness of our approaches, particularly in balanced trials, demonstrating the validity of group sequential boundaries and the accuracy of maximum sample size estimations. Additionally, we utilize a real trial as an example to compare our considered trial with group sequential trials using the log-rank and generalized piecewise weighted log-rank tests. The results show significantly reduced maximum sample sizes, highlighting the economic advantage of our approach.

Study design for restricted mean time analysis of recurrent events and death

The restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) of treatment has just been added to the analytic toolbox for composite endpoints of recurrent events and death. To help practitioners design new trials based on this method, we develop tools to calculate the sample size and power. Specifically, we formulate the outcomes as a multistate Markov process with a sequence of transient states for recurrent events and an absorbing state for death. The transition intensities, in this case the instantaneous risks of another nonfatal event or death, are assumed to be time-homogeneous but nonetheless allowed to depend on the number of past events. Using the properties of Coxian distributions, we derive the RMT-IF effect size under the alternative hypothesis as a function of the treatment-to-control intensity ratios along with the baseline intensities, the latter of which can be easily estimated from historical data. We also reduce the variance of the nonparametric RMT-IF estimator to calculable terms under a standard set-up for censoring. Simulation studies show that the resulting formulas provide accurate approximation to the sample size and power in realistic settings. For illustration, a past cardiovascular trial with recurrent-hospitalization and mortality outcomes is analyzed to generate the parameters needed to design a future trial. The procedures are incorporated into the rmt package along with the original methodology on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).

Nonparametric inference of general while-alive estimands for recurrent events

Measuring the treatment effect on recurrent events like hospitalization in the presence of death has long challenged statisticians and clinicians alike. Traditional inference on the cumulative frequency unjustly penalizes survivorship as longer survivors also tend to experience more adverse events. Expanding a recently suggested idea of the "while-alive" event rate, we consider a general class of such estimands that adjust for the length of survival without losing causal interpretation. Given a user-specified loss function that allows for arbitrary weighting, we define as estimand the average loss experienced per unit time alive within a target period and use the ratio of this loss rate to measure the effect size. Scaling the loss rate by the width of the corresponding time window gives us an alternative, and sometimes more photogenic, way of showing the data. To make inferences, we construct a nonparametric estimator for the loss rate through the cumulative loss and the restricted mean survival time and derive its influence function in closed form for variance estimation and testing. As simulations and analysis of real data from a heart failure trial both show, the while-alive approach corrects for the false attenuation of treatment effect due to patients living longer under treatment, with increased statistical power as a result. The proposed methods are implemented in the R-package WA, which is publicly available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).

Quantification of follow-up time in oncology clinical trials with a time-to-event endpoint: Asking the right questions

For the analysis of a time-to-event endpoint in a single-arm or randomized clinical trial it is generally perceived that interpretation of a given estimate of the survival function, or the comparison between two groups, hinges on some quantification of the amount of follow-up. Typically, a median of some loosely defined quantity is reported. However, whatever median is reported, is typically not answering the question(s) trialists actually have in terms of follow-up quantification. In this paper, inspired by the estimand framework, we formulate a comprehensive list of relevant scientific questions that trialists have when reporting time-to-event data. We illustrate how these questions should be answered, and that reference to an unclearly defined follow-up quantity is not needed at all. In drug development, key decisions are made based on randomized controlled trials, and we therefore also discuss relevant scientific questions not only when looking at a time-to-event endpoint in one group, but also for comparisons. We find that different thinking about some of the relevant scientific questions around follow-up is required depending on whether a proportional hazards assumption can be made or other patterns of survival functions are anticipated, for example, delayed separation, crossing survival functions, or the potential for cure. We conclude the paper with practical recommendations.

Power and Sample Size Calculations for the Restricted Mean Time Analysis of Prioritized Composite Endpoints

As a new way of reporting treatment effect, the restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) of treatment measures the net average time the treated have had a less serious outcome than the untreated over a specified time window. With multiple outcomes of differing severity, this offers a more interpretable and data-efficient alternative to the prototypical restricted mean (event-free) survival time. To facilitate its adoption in actual trials, we develop simple approaches to power and sample size calculations and implement them in user-friendly R programs. In doing so we model the bivariate outcomes of death and a nonfatal event using a Gumbel-Hougaard copula with component-wise proportional hazards structures, under which the RMT-IF estimand is derived in closed form. In a standard set-up for censoring, the variance of the nonparametric effect-size estimator is simplified and computed via a hybrid of numerical and Monte Carlo integrations, allowing us to compute the power and sample size as functions of component-wise hazard ratios. Simulation studies show that these formulas provide accurate approximations in realistic settings. To illustrate our methods, we consider designing a new trial to evaluate treatment effect on the composite outcomes of death and cancer relapse in lymph node-positive breast cancer patients, with baseline parameters calculated from a previous study.

Discovery of genes positively modulating treatment effect using potential outcome framework and Bayesian update

Background

The recent explosion of cancer genomics provides extensive information about mutations and gene expression changes in cancer. However, most of the identified gene mutations are not clinically utilized. It remains uncertain whether the presence of a certain genetic alteration will affect treatment response. Conventional statistics have limitations for causal inferences and are hard to gain sufficient power in genomic datasets. Here, we developed and evaluated a C-search algorithm for searching the causal genes that maximize the effect of the treatment.

Methods

The algorithm was developed based on the potential outcome framework and Bayesian posterior update. The precision of the algorithm was validated using a simulation dataset. The algorithm was implemented to a cBioPortal dataset. The genes discovered by the algorithm were externally validated within CancerSCAN screening data from Samsung Medical Center.

Results

Simulation data analysis showed that the C-search algorithm was able to identify nine causal genes out of ten. The C-search algorithm shows the discovery rate rapidly increasing until the 1500 data instances. Meanwhile, the log-rank test shows a slower increase in performance. The C-search algorithm was able to suggest nine causal genes from the cBioPortal Metabric dataset. Treating the patients with the causal genes is associated with better survival outcome in both the cBioPortal dataset and the CancerSCAN dataset which is used for external validation.

Conclusions

Our C-search algorithm demonstrated better performance to identify causal effects of the genes than multiple log-rank test analysis especially within a limited number of data. The result suggests that the C-search can discover the causal genes from various genetic datasets, where the number of samples is limited compared to the number of variables.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01852-3.

Complex survival trial design by the product integration method

Nonproportional hazards (NPHs) are often observed in survival trials such as the immunotherapy cancer trials. Under NPH, the classical log-rank test can be inefficient, and the estimated hazards ratio from the Cox model is difficult to interpret. The weighted log-rank test, and the tests for comparing the restricted mean survival time or the milestone survival become increasingly popular in handling NPH. The sample size calculation for these tests may require high-dimensional numerical integration. We present a sample size determination method for survival trials via product integration on the basis of a continuous-time multistate Markov model. The main challenge of the method lies in the design of the multistate model under a complex NPH pattern, and this is illustrated for NPH induced by delayed effect with individual heterogeneity in the lag duration, cure fractions, and treatment switching due to disease progression or noncompliance. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed method. We obtain the following findings. The powers of the tests for milestone survival and RMST depend on both the trial duration and milestone timepoint, and may not increase as the milestone timepoint increases. If the milestone timepoint is appropriately chosen, the RMST test can be more powerful than the conventional log-rank test in the presence of diminishing treatment effect or in the proportional hazards cure model. In general, the RMST test yields lower power than a proper Fleming-Harrington weighted log-rank test.

A unified approach to power and sample size determination for log-rank tests under proportional and nonproportional hazards

Log-rank tests have been widely used to compare two survival curves in biomedical research. We describe a unified approach to power and sample size calculation for the unweighted and weighted log-rank tests in superiority, noninferiority and equivalence trials. It is suitable for both time-driven and event-driven trials. A numerical algorithm is suggested. It allows flexible specification of the patient accrual distribution, baseline hazards, and proportional or nonproportional hazards patterns, and enables efficient sample size calculation when there are a range of choices for the patient accrual pattern and trial duration. A confidence interval method is proposed for the trial duration of an event-driven trial. We point out potential issues with several popular sample size formulae. Under proportional hazards, the power of a survival trial is commonly believed to be determined by the number of observed events. The belief is roughly valid for noninferiority and equivalence trials with similar survival and censoring distributions between two groups, and for superiority trials with balanced group sizes. In unbalanced superiority trials, the power depends also on other factors such as data maturity. Surprisingly, the log-rank test usually yields slightly higher power than the Wald test from the Cox model under proportional hazards in simulations. We consider various nonproportional hazards patterns induced by delayed effects, cure fractions, and/or treatment switching. Explicit power formulae are derived for the combination test that takes the maximum of two or more weighted log-rank tests to handle uncertain nonproportional hazards patterns. Numerical examples are presented for illustration.

Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Trial Objective and Analysis of Oncology Clinical Trials-Application of the Estimand Framework

Abstract-Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on patient journeys in oncology represents a new risk to interpretation of trial results and its broad applicability for future clinical practice. We identify key intercurrent events (ICEs) that may occur due to COVID-19 in oncology clinical trials with a focus on time-to-event endpoints and discuss considerations pertaining to the other estimand attributes introduced in the ICH E9 addendum. We propose strategies to handle COVID-19 related ICEs, depending on their relationship with malignancy and treatment and the interpretability of data after them. We argue that the clinical trial objective from a world without COVID-19 pandemic remains valid. The estimand framework provides a common language to discuss the impact of COVID-19 in a structured and transparent manner. This demonstrates that the applicability of the framework may even go beyond what it was initially intended for.