Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated

被引:47
|
作者
Royston, Patrick [1 ]
Parmar, Mahesh K. B. [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL, MRC Clin Trials Unit, Aviation House 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH, England
来源
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | 2016年 / 16卷
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Time-to-event data; Randomized controlled trials; Hazard ratio; Restricted mean survival time; Non-proportional hazards; Logrank test; Permutation test; Design; Simulation; Flexible parametric model; MEAN SURVIVAL-TIME; PSEUDO-OBSERVATIONS; REGRESSION-ANALYSIS; COX REGRESSION; OVARIAN-CANCER; SAMPLE-SIZE; DISTRIBUTIONS; RESIDUALS; EQUALITY; UPDATE;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-016-0110-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed assuming proportional hazards (PH) of the treatment effect. The sample size calculation is based on a logrank test. However, non-proportional hazards are increasingly common. At analysis, the estimated hazards ratio with a confidence interval is usually presented. The estimate is often obtained from a Cox PH model with treatment as a covariate. If non-proportional hazards are present, the logrank and equivalent Cox tests may lose power. To safeguard power, we previously suggested a 'joint test' combining the Cox test with a test of non-proportional hazards. Unfortunately, a larger sample size is needed to preserve power under PH. Here, we describe a novel test that unites the Cox test with a permutation test based on restricted mean survival time. Methods: We propose a combined hypothesis test based on a permutation test of the difference in restricted mean survival time across time. The test involves the minimum of the Cox and permutation test P-values. We approximate its null distribution and correct it for correlation between the two P-values. Using extensive simulations, we assess the type 1 error and power of the combined test under several scenarios and compare with other tests. We investigate powering a trial using the combined test. Results: The type 1 error of the combined test is close to nominal. Power under proportional hazards is slightly lower than for the Cox test. Enhanced power is available when the treatment difference shows an 'early effect', an initial separation of survival curves which diminishes over time. The power is reduced under a 'late effect', when little or no difference in survival curves is seen for an initial period and then a late separation occurs. We propose a method of powering a trial using the combined test. The 'insurance premium' offered by the combined test to safeguard power under non-PH represents about a single-digit percentage increase in sample size. Conclusions: The combined test increases trial power under an early treatment effect and protects power under other scenarios. Use of restricted mean survival time facilitates testing and displaying a generalized treatment effect.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 11 条
  • [1] Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated
    Patrick Royston
    Mahesh K.B. Parmar
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16
  • [2] An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
    Royston, Patrick
    Parmar, Mahesh K. B.
    TRIALS, 2014, 15
  • [3] An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
    Patrick Royston
    Mahesh KB Parmar
    Trials, 15
  • [4] Quantifying treatment differences in confirmatory trials under non-proportional hazards
    Jimenez, Jose L.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2022, 49 (02) : 466 - 484
  • [5] Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review
    Bardo, Maximilian
    Huber, Cynthia
    Benda, Norbert
    Brugger, Jonas
    Fellinger, Tobias
    Galaune, Vaidotas
    Heinz, Judith
    Heinzl, Harald
    Hooker, Andrew C.
    Klinglmueller, Florian
    Koenig, Franz
    Mathes, Tim
    Mittlboeck, Martina
    Posch, Martin
    Ristl, Robin
    Friede, Tim
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 33 (06) : 1069 - 1092
  • [6] Critical review of oncology clinical trial design under non-proportional hazards
    Ananthakrishnan, Revathi
    Green, Stephanie
    Previtali, Alessandro
    Liu, Rong
    Li, Daniel
    LaValley, Michael
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 2021, 162
  • [7] Futility monitoring for randomized clinical trials with non-proportional hazards: An optimal conditional power approach
    Wang, Xiaofei
    George, Stephen L.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2023, 20 (06) : 603 - 612
  • [8] The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt
    Royston, Patrick
    Parmar, Mahesh K. B.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 30 (19) : 2409 - 2421
  • [9] Comparison of methods to testing for differential treatment effect under non-proportional hazards data
    Pardo, Maria del Carmen
    Cobo, Beatriz
    MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES AND ENGINEERING, 2023, 20 (10) : 17646 - 17660
  • [10] Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice
    Jachno, Kim
    Heritier, Stephane
    Wolfe, Rory
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (1)