Tumor growth inhibition data in in vivo anticancer experiments are commonly analyzed using the treatment-to-control ratio (TCR). Parametric and nonparametric confidence interval approaches for this ratio are introduced, enabling a quantitative statistical decision. The growth curves are characterized by the area-under-the-curve technique, adjusted for animal-specific survival. Simple simultaneous approaches are proposed for complex designs, including several treatment or dose groups. This implementation makes decision making easier for the pharmacologists through the use of simple diagrams for the treatment-to-control ratios and their confidence intervals. Tumor inhibition and regression can be appropriately statistically analyzed by treatment-to-control ratios and their confidence intervals.
ShustermanSGruppSABarrRCarpentieriDZhaoHMarisJMThe angiogenesis inhibitor TNP-470 effectively inhibits human neuroblastoma xenograft growth, especially in the setting of subclinical disease. Clin Cancer Res.2001;7:977–984.
2.
FreedmanLSMidthuneDNBrownCCSteeleVKelloffGJStatistical analysis of animal cancer chemoprevention experiments. Biometrics.1993;49:259–268.
3.
KokoskaSMHardinJMGrubbsCJHsuC.The statistical analysis of cancer inhibition/promotion experiments. Anticancer Res.1993;13: 1357–1363.
4.
DunsonDBHasemanJKModeling tumor onset and multiplicity using transition models with latent variables. Biometrics.1999;55:965–970.
5.
KoziolJAMaxwellDAA distribution-free test for paired growth curve analyses with application to an animal tumour immunotherapy experiment. Stat. Med.1992;1: 83–89.
6.
HanfeltJJStatistical approaches to experimental design and data analysis of in vivo studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat.1997;46: 279–302.
7.
LiangHShaNJModeling antitumor activity by using a non-linear mixed-effects model. Math Biosci.2004;89:61–73.
8.
TanMFangHBTianGLHoughtonPJSmall-sample inference for incomplete longitudinal data with truncation and censoring in tumor xenograft models. Biometrics.2002;58:612–620.
9.
TanTFangHBTianGLRepeated-measures models with constrained parameters for incomplete data in tumour xenograft experiments. Stat. Med.2005;24:109–119.
10.
PhamBCranneyABoersMVerhoevenACWellsGTugwellP.Validity of area-under-the-curve analysis to summarize effect in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol.1999;26:712–716.
11.
FrisonLPocockSJRepeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med.1992;11:1685–1704.
12.
QianWParmarMKBAnalysis of messy longitudinal data from a randomized clinical trial. Stat Med.2000;19:2657–2674.
13.
MatthewsJNCampbellMJAdjusting for baseline: Change or percentage change. Stat Med.1992;11:1624–1626.
14.
VardiYYingZZhangC.Two-sample tests for growth curves under dependent right censoring. Biometrika.2001;80:949–960.
15.
HeitjanDFKunselmanS.: Time until first significant difference in in vivo tumor growth experiments. in Vivo.1995;9:7–9.
16.
ReRNCookJLGiardinaJFThe inhibition of tumor growth by triplex-forming oligonuceotides. Cancer Lett.2004;209:51–53.
17.
HarrisonGRichardsSLawsonSComparison of allogeneic transplant versus chemotherapy for relapsed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in the MRC UKALL R1 trial. Ann Oncol.2000;11:999–1006.
18.
RoehmelJ.Therapeutic equivalence investigations: Statistical considerations. Stat Med.1998;17:1703–1714.
19.
FeuersteinTJRossnerRSchumacherM.How to express an effect mean as percentage of a control mean?J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods.1997;37: 187–190.
20.
LiuJPWengCSEvaluation of log-transformation in assessing bioequivalence. Commun Stat.1994; A23:421–434.
21.
FiellerE.Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc.1954;B16:175–185.
22.
CorbettThValerioteFTumor models and the discovery and secondary evaluation of solid tumor active agents. Int J Pharmacognosy.1995;33: 102–122.
23.
HauschkeDKieserMHothornLAProof of safety in toxicology based on the ratio of two means for normally distributed data. Biometr J.1999;41:295–304.
24.
IversenPWComparison of in vivo tumor growth models. Proc Annu Meeting Am Stat Assoc.2001:5–9.
25.
HothornTMunzelU.Non-parametric confidence interval for the ratio. Report University of Erlangen, Department Medical Statistics. 2002. Available at: www.uni-erlangen.de.
26.
HodgesJLLehmannELEstimates of location based on rank tests. Ann Math Stat.1963;34:598–611.
27.
DilbaGBretzFGuiardVHothornLASimultaneous confidence intervals for ratios for the comparison of several treatments with a control. Meth Inf Med.2004;43:465–469.
28.
BretzFHothornLAHsuJ.Identifying effective and/or safe doses by stepwise confidence intervals for ratios. Stat Med.2003;22:847–858.
