Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background During the recruitment phase of a randomized breast cancer trial, investigating the time to recurrence, we found a strong suggestion that the failure probabilities used at the design stage were too high. Since most of the methodological research involving sample size re-estimation has focused on normal or binary outcomes, we developed a method which preserves blinding to re-estimate sample size in our time to event trial.

Purpose A mistakenly high estimate of the failure rate at the design stage may reduce the power unacceptably for a clinically important hazard ratio. We describe an ongoing trial and an application of a sample size re-estimation method that combines current trial data with prior trial data or assumes a parametric model to re-estimate failure probabilities in a blinded fashion.

Methods Using our current blinded trial data and additional information from prior studies, we re-estimate the failure probabilities to be used in sample size re-calculation. We employ bootstrap re-sampling to quantify uncertainty in the re-estimated sample sizes.

Results At the time of re-estimation data from 278 patients were available, averaging 1.2 years of follow up. Using either method, we estimated a sample size increase of zero for the hazard ratio because the estimated failure probabilities at the time of re-estimation differed little from what was expected. We show that our method of blinded sample size re-estimation preserves the type I error rate. We show that when the initial guess of the failure probabilities are correct, the median increase in sample size is zero.

Limitations Either some prior knowledge of an appropriate survival distribution shape or prior data is needed for re-estimation.

Conclusions In trials when the accrual period is lengthy, blinded sample size re-estimation near the end of the planned accrual period should be considered. In our examples, when assumptions about failure probabilities and HRs are correct the methods usually do not increase sample size or otherwise increase it by very little. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 219. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Shen Y. , Cai J. Sample size reestimation in clinical trials with censored survival data. J Am Stat Assoc 2003; 98: 418-26.

Wassmer G. A comparison of two methods for adaptive interim analyses in clinical trials . Biometrics 1998; 54: 696-705.

Bauer P. , Kohne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1029-41.

Gould A. Sample size re-estimation: recent developments and practical considerations . Stat Med 2001; 20: 2625-43.

Shih W. , Zhao P. Design for sample size re-estimation with interim data for double-blind clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 1997 ; 16: 1913-23.

Korn E. , Simon R. Data monitoring committees and problems of lower-than-expected accrual or event rates. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 526-35.

Love RR , Mazess RB , Barden HS , et al. Oophorectomy and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy in premenopausal Vietnamese and Chinese women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 2559-66.

Love RR , Van Dinh N. , Quy TT , et al. Survival after adjuvant oophorectomy and tamoxifen in operable breast cancer in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 253-7.

Gould A. Interim analyses for monitoring clinical trials that do not materially affect the type I error rate. Stat Med 1992; 11: 55-66.

10.

Anderson W. , Matsuno R.

Breast cancer heterogeneity: A mixture of at least two main types?

J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 948-51.

11.

Saphner T. , Tormey D. , Gray R. Annual hazard rates recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2738-46.

12.

Retsky MW , Swartzendruber D. , Wardwell R. , Bame P. Computer simulation of a breast cancer metastasis model. Breast Cancer Res Tr 1997; 45: 193-202.

13.

Coffey C. , Muller K. Controlling test size while gaining the benefits of an internal pilot design . Biometrics 2001; 57: 625-31.

14.

Coffey C. , Muller K. Exact test size and power of a Gaussian error linear model for an internal pilot study. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1199-214.

15.

Gould AL , Shih WJ Modifying the design of ongoing trials without unblinding. Stat Med 1998; 17: 89-100.

16.

Peto R. , Peto J. Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures (with discussion) . J R Stat Soc A 1972; 135: 185-206.

17.

Efron B. , Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993.

18.

Dudewicz E. Confidence intervals for power with special reference to medical trials. Australas J Stat 1972; 14: 211-6.

19.

Taylor D. , Muller K. Computing confidence bounds for power and sample size of the general linear univariate model. Am Stat 1995; 49: 43-7.

20.

Lakatos E. Sample sizes based on the log-rank statistic in complex clinical trials. Biometrics 1988; 44: 229-41.

Sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer trial

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References