Sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer trial

Improving sample size recalculation in adaptive clinical trials by resampling

Sample size calculations in clinical trials need to be based on profound parameter assumptions. Wrong parameter choices may lead to too small or too high sample sizes and can have severe ethical and economical consequences. Adaptive group sequential study designs are one solution to deal with planning uncertainties. Here, the sample size can be updated during an ongoing trial based on the observed interim effect. However, the observed interim effect is a random variable and thus does not necessarily correspond to the true effect. One way of dealing with the uncertainty related to this random variable is to include resampling elements in the recalculation strategy. In this paper, we focus on clinical trials with a normally distributed endpoint. We consider resampling of the observed interim test statistic and apply this principle to several established sample size recalculation approaches. The resulting recalculation rules are smoother than the original ones and thus the variability in sample size is lower. In particular, we found that some resampling approaches mimic a group sequential design. In general, incorporating resampling of the interim test statistic in existing sample size recalculation rules results in a substantial performance improvement with respect to a recently published conditional performance score.

A Signature Enrichment Design with Bayesian Adaptive Randomization

Clinical trials in the era of precision cancer medicine aim to identify and validate biomarker signatures which can guide the assignment of individually optimal treatments to patients. In this article, we propose a group sequential randomized phase II design, which updates the biomarker signature as the trial goes on, utilizes enrichment strategies for patient selection, and uses Bayesian response-adaptive randomization for treatment assignment. To evaluate the performance of the new design, in addition to the commonly considered criteria of type I error and power, we propose four new criteria measuring the benefits and losses for individuals both inside and outside of the clinical trial. Compared with designs with equal randomization, the proposed design gives trial participants a better chance to receive their personalized optimal treatments and thus results in a higher response rate on the trial. This design increases the chance to discover a successful new drug by an adaptive enrichment strategy, i.e., identification and selective enrollment of a subset of patients who are sensitive to the experimental therapies. Simulation studies demonstrate these advantages of the proposed design. It is illustrated by an example based on an actual clinical trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Follow up after sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer randomized trial for disease-free survival

BACKGROUND

While the clinical trials and statistical methodology literature on sample size re-estimation (SSRE) is robust, evaluation of SSRE procedures following the completion of a clinical trial has been sparsely reported. In blinded sample size re-estimation, only nuisance parameters are re-estimated, and the blinding of the current trial treatment effect is preserved. Blinded re-estimation procedures are well-accepted by regulatory agencies and funders. We review our experience of sample size re-estimation in a large international, National Institutes of Health funded clinical trial for adjuvant breast cancer treatment, and evaluate our blinded sample size re-estimation procedure for this time-to-event trial. We evaluated the SSRE procedure by examining assumptions made during the re-estimation process, estimates resulting from re-estimation, and the impact on final trial results with and without the addition of participants, following sample size re-estimation.

METHODS

We compared the control group failure probabilities estimated at the time of SSRE to estimates used in the original planning, to the final un-blinded control group failure probability estimates for those included in the SSRE procedure (SSRE cohort), and to the final total control group failure probability estimates. The impact of re-estimation on the final comparison between randomized treatment groups is evaluated for those in the originally planned cohort (n = 340) and for the combination of those recruited in the originally planned cohort and those added after re-estimation (n = 509).

RESULTS

Very little difference is observed between the originally planned cohort and all randomized patients in the control group failure probabilities over time or in the overall hazard ratio estimating treatment effect (originally planned cohort HR 1.25 (0.86, 1.79); all randomized cohort HR 1.24 95% CI (0.91, 1.68)). At the time of blinded SSRE, the estimated control group failure probabilities at 3 years (0.24) and 5 years (0.40) were similar to those for the SSRE cohort once un-blinded (3 years, 0.22 (0.16, 0.30); 5 years, 0.33 (0.26, 0.41)).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that our re-estimation procedure performed reasonably well in estimating the control group failure probabilities at the time of re-estimation. Particularly for time-to-event outcomes, pre-planned blinded SSRE procedures may be the best option to aid in maintaining power.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00201851 . Registered on 9 September 2005. Retrospectively registered.

Timing of adjuvant surgical oophorectomy in the menstrual cycle and disease-free and overall survival in premenopausal women with operable breast cancer

BACKGROUND

For women with hormone receptor-positive, operable breast cancer, surgical oophorectomy plus tamoxifen is an effective adjuvant therapy. We conducted a phase III randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that oophorectomy surgery performed during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle was associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

Seven hundred forty premenopausal women entered a clinical trial in which those women estimated not to be in the luteal phase of their menstrual cycle for the next one to six days (n = 509) were randomly assigned to receive treatment with surgical oophorectomy either delayed to be during a five-day window in the history-estimated midluteal phase of the menstrual cycles, or in the next one to six days. Women who were estimated to be in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle for the next one to six days (n = 231) were excluded from random assignment and received immediate surgical treatments. All patients began tamoxifen within 6 days of surgery and continued this for 5 years. Kaplan-Meier methods, the log-rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess differences in five-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the groups. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

The randomized midluteal phase surgery group had a five-year DFS of 64%, compared with 71% for the immediate surgery random assignment group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.68, P = .18). Multivariable Cox regression models, which included important prognostic variables, gave similar results (aHR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.76, P = .12). For overall survival, the univariate hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.89, P = .11) and the multivariable aHR was 1.43 (95% CI = 1.00 to 2.06, P = .05). Better DFS for follicular phase surgery, which was unanticipated, proved consistent across multiple exploratory analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesized benefit of adjuvant luteal phase oophorectomy was not shown in this large trial.

Effects on survival of menstrual cycle phase of adjuvant surgical oophorectomy in premenopausal women with breast cancer

Adjuvant surgical oophorectomy is an effective and remarkably cost effective treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive operable breast cancer. Previously published secondary analyses indicated a survival benefit for patients whose surgery was performed in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle as opposed to the follicular. This study utilizes additional follow-up and more fully examines this hypothesis and the general implications of long-term follow-up on trial design. Beginning in 1993 we recruited women to a multicenter randomized clinical trial of adjuvant surgical oophorectomy and tamoxifen for 5 years. We recorded the reported day 1 of the patients' last menstrual cycle on the day of their adjuvant surgery. We conducted secondary analyses of the association of history-estimated luteal or follicular phase oophorectomy surgery with disease-free and overall survival. In multivariable Cox analyses, disease-free survival (DFS) exhibited a positive trend and overall survival (OS) showed a significant improvement in patients whose surgery was estimated to have occurred in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle compared to the follicular (HR for DFS: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.37-1.16; HR for OS: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.88). From the hazard function plots, it appears that the luteal phase surgery effect on DFS diminishes after 6 years of follow-up. In conclusion, adjuvant surgical oophorectomy during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle resulted in a reduced hazard of recurrence as compared to oophorectomy in the follicular phase during the first 5.5 years of follow-up. The practical and biological implications of these findings deserve rigorous evaluation in clinical trials.