Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. This assumption not only affects the analysis part but also the sample size calculation. The presence of delayed effects causes a change in the hazard ratio while the trial is ongoing since at the beginning we do not observe any difference between treatment arms and after some unknown time point, the differences between treatment arms will start to appear. Hence, the proportional hazards assumption no longer holds and both sample size calculation and analysis methods to be used should be reconsidered. The weighted log-rank test allows a weighting for early, middle and late differences through the Fleming and Harrington class of weights, and is proven to be more efficient when the proportional hazards assumption does not hold. The Fleming and Harrington class of weights, along with the estimated delay, can be incorporated into the sample size calculation in order to maintain the desired power once the treatment arm differences start to appear. In this article, we explore the impact of delayed effects in group sequential and adaptive group sequential designs, and make an empirical evaluation in terms of power and type-I error rate of the of the weighted log-rank test in a simulated scenario with fixed values of the Fleming and Harrington class of weights. We also give some practical recommendations regarding which methodology should be used in the presence of delayed effects depending on certain characteristics of the trial.

Properties of the weighted log-rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. With the emergence of immunotherapy and novel targeted therapies, departure from the proportional hazard assumption is not rare in nowadays clinical research. Under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio does not have a straightforward clinical interpretation, and the log-rank test is no longer the most powerful statistical test even though it is still valid. Nevertheless, the log-rank test and the hazard ratio are still the primary analysis tools, and traditional approaches such as sample size increase are still proposed to account for the impact of non-proportional hazards. The weighed log-rank test and the test based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST) are receiving a lot of attention as a potential alternative to the log-rank test. We conduct a simulation study comparing the performance and operating characteristics of the log-rank test, the weighted log-rank test and the test based on the RMST, including a treatment effect estimation, under different non-proportional hazards patterns. Results show that, under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio and weighted hazard ratio have no straightforward clinical interpretation whereas the RMST ratio can be interpreted regardless of the proportional hazards assumption. In terms of power, the RMST achieves a similar performance when compared to the log-rank test.

Quantifying treatment differences in confirmatory trials under non-proportional hazards

A candidate gene of Alzheimer diseases was mutated in senescence-accelerated mouse prone (SAMP) 8 mice.

Background. Survival analysis attracted the attention of different scientists from various domains such as engineering, health, and social sciences. It has been widely exploited in clinical trials when comparing different treatments looking at their survival probabilities. Kaplan–Meier curves plotted from the Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival probabilities are used to depict the general image for such situations. Methods. The weighted log-rank test has been dealt with by suggesting different weight functions which give specific strength in specific situations. In this work, we proposed a new weight function comprising all numbers at risk, i.e., the overall number at risk and the separate numbers at risk in the groups under study, to detect late differences between survival curves. Results. The new test has been found to be a good alternative after the FH (0, 1) test in detecting late differences, and it outperformed all tests in case of small samples and heavy censoring rates according to the simulation studies. The new test kept the same strength when applied to real data where it showed itself to be among the powerful ones or even outperforms all other tests under consideration. Conclusion. As the new test stays stronger in the case of small samples and heavy censoring rates, it may be a better choice whenever targeting the detection of late differences between the survival curves.

/pdf/new-test-for-the-comparison-of-survival-curves-to-detect-bd66mqxo.pdf

New Test for the Comparison of Survival Curves to Detect Late Differences

In confirmatory cancer clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is normally a primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis under regulatory standards. After the tumor progresses, it is common that patients allocated to the control group switch to the experimental treatment, or another drug in the same class. Such treatment switching may dilute the relative efficacy of the new drug compared to the control group, leading to lower statistical power. It would be possible to decrease the estimation bias by shortening the follow-up period but this may lead to a loss of information and power. Instead we propose a modified weighted log-rank test (mWLR) that aims at balancing these factors by down-weighting events occurring when many patients have switched treatment. 
As the weighting should be pre-specified and the impact of treatment switching is unknown, we predict the hazard ratio function and use it to compute the weights of the mWLR. The method may incorporate information from previous trials regarding the potential hazard ratio function over time. 
We are motivated by the RECORD-1 trial of everolimus against placebo in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma where almost 80\% of the patients in the placebo group received everolimus after disease progression. Extensive simulations show that the new test gives considerably higher efficiency than the standard log-rank test in realistic scenarios.

A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching

In confirmatory cancer clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is normally a primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis under regulatory standards. After the tumor progresses, it is common that patients allocated to the control group switch to the experimental treatment, or another drug in the same class. Such treatment switching may dilute the relative efficacy of the new drug compared to the control group, leading to lower statistical power. It would be possible to decrease the estimation bias by shortening the follow-up period but this may lead to a loss of information and power. Instead we propose a modified weighted log-rank test (mWLR) that aims at balancing these factors by down-weighting events occurring when many patients have switched treatment. As the weighting should be pre-specified and the impact of treatment switching is unknown, we predict the hazard ratio function and use it to compute the weights of the mWLR. The method may incorporate information from previous trials regarding the potential hazard ratio function over time. We are motivated by the RECORD-1 trial of everolimus against placebo in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma where almost 80% of the patients in the placebo group received everolimus after disease progression. Extensive simulations show that the new test gives considerably higher efficiency than the standard log-rank test in realistic scenarios.

A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching.

Clinical trials can typically feature two different types of multiple inference: testing of more than one null hypothesis and testing at multiple time points. These modes of multiplicity are closely related mathematically but distinct statistically and philosophically. Regulatory agencies require strong control of the family-wise error rate (FWER), the risk of falsely rejecting any null hypothesis at any analysis. The correlations between test statistics at interim analyses and the final analysis are therefore routinely used in group sequential designs to achieve less conservative critical values. However, the same type of correlations between different comparisons, endpoints or sub-populations are less commonly used. As a result, FWER is in practice often controlled conservatively for commonly applied procedures.Repeated testing of the same null hypothesis may give changing results, when the hypothesis is rejected at an interim but accepted at the final analysis. The mathematically correct overall rejection is at odds with an inference theoretic approach and with common sense. We discuss these two issues, of incorporating correlations and how to interpret time-changing conclusions, and provide case studies where power can be increased while adhering to sound statistical principles.

Julia Niewczas

Papers

A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching

A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching.

Improved group sequential Holm procedures for testing multiple correlated hypotheses over time.