Non-proportional hazards in immuno-oncology: Is an old perspective needed?

被引:14
作者
Magirr, Dominic [1 ]
机构
[1] Novartis Pharma AG, Adv Methodol & Data Sci, Basel, Switzerland
关键词
drug regulation; immuno‐ oncology; log‐ rank test; nonproportional hazards; SURVIVAL-DATA; RANK TEST; TESTS; LOGRANK; EQUIVALENCE; RATIO;
D O I
10.1002/pst.2091
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
A fundamental concept in two-arm non-parametric survival analysis is the comparison of observed versus expected numbers of events on one of the treatment arms (the choice of which arm is arbitrary), where the expectation is taken assuming that the true survival curves in the two arms are identical. This concept is at the heart of the counting-process theory that provides a rigorous basis for methods such as the log-rank test. It is natural, therefore, to maintain this perspective when extending the log-rank test to deal with non-proportional hazards, for example, by considering a weighted sum of the "observed - expected" terms, where larger weights are given to time periods where the hazard ratio is expected to favor the experimental treatment. In doing so, however, one may stumble across some rather subtle issues, related to difficulties in the interpretation of hazard ratios, that may lead to strange conclusions. An alternative approach is to view non-parametric survival comparisons as permutation tests. With this perspective, one can easily improve on the efficiency of the log-rank test, while thoroughly controlling the false positive rate. In particular, for the field of immuno-oncology, where researchers often anticipate a delayed treatment effect, sample sizes could be substantially reduced without loss of power.
引用
收藏
页码:512 / 527
页数:16
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Does Cox analysis of a randomized survival study yield a causal treatment effect?
    Aalen, Odd O.
    Cook, Richard J.
    Roysland, Kjetil
    [J]. LIFETIME DATA ANALYSIS, 2015, 21 (04) : 579 - 593
  • [2] The Hazards of Period Specific and Weighted Hazard Ratios
    Bartlett, Jonathan W.
    Morris, Tim P.
    Stensrud, Mats J.
    Daniel, Rhian M.
    Vansteelandt, Stijn K.
    Burman, Carl-Fredrik
    [J]. STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 12 (04): : 518 - 519
  • [3] A COMPARISON OF 2 SIMPLE HAZARD RATIO ESTIMATORS BASED ON THE LOGRANK TEST
    BERRY, G
    KITCHIN, RM
    MOCK, PA
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1991, 10 (05) : 749 - 755
  • [4] Critical reappraisal of phase III trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-proportional hazards settings
    Castanon, Eduardo
    Sanchez-Arraez, Alvaro
    Alvarez-Mancenido, Felipe
    Jimenez-Fonseca, Paula
    Carmona-Bayonas, Alberto
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2020, 136 : 159 - 168
  • [5] Comparison of survival distributions in clinical trials: A practical guidance
    Chen, Xiaotian
    Wang, Xin
    Chen, Kun
    Zheng, Yeya
    Chappell, Richard J.
    Dey, Jyotirmoy
    [J]. CLINICAL TRIALS, 2020, 17 (05) : 507 - 521
  • [6] COX DR, 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P187
  • [7] Clinical Versus Statistical Significance in Studies of Thoracic Malignancies
    Dahlberg, Suzanne E.
    Korn, Edward L.
    Le-Rademacher, Jennifer
    Mandrekar, Sumithra J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2020, 15 (09) : 1406 - 1408
  • [8] Fleming T. R., 1991, WILEY SERIES PROBABI
  • [9] Estimating Treatment Effect as the Primary Analysis in a Comparative Study: Moving Beyond P Value Reply
    Freidlin, Boris
    Korn, Edward L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (17) : 2003 - +
  • [10] Methods for Accommodating Nonproportional Hazards in Clinical Trials: Ready for the Primary Analysis?
    Freidlin, Boris
    Korn, Edward L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 37 (35) : 3455 - +