Design and analysis of group-sequential clinical trials based on a modestly weighted log-rank test in anticipation of a delayed separation of survival curves: A practical guidance

Abstract

Background:

A common feature of many recent trials evaluating the effects of immunotherapy on survival is that non-proportional hazards can be anticipated at the design stage. This raises the possibility to use a statistical method tailored towards testing the purported long-term benefit, rather than applying the more standard log-rank test and/or Cox model. Many such proposals have been made in recent years, but there remains a lack of practical guidance on implementation, particularly in the context of group-sequential designs. In this article, we aim to fill this gap.

Methods:

We illustrate how the POPLAR trial, which compared immunotherapy versus chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer, might have been re-designed to be more robust to the presence of a delayed effect using the modestly-weighted log-rank test in a group-sequential setting.

Conclusion:

We provide step-by-step instructions on how to analyse a hypothetical realization of the trial, based on this new design. Basic theory on weighted log-rank tests and group-sequential methods is covered, and an accompanying R package (including vignette) is provided.

Keywords

Delayed effects group sequential designs immuno-oncology log-rank test modestly-weighted log-rank test time-to-event

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Harrington

Fleming

. A class of rank test procedures for censored survival data. Biometrika 1982; 69(3): 553–566.

Yang

Prentice

. Improved logrank-type tests for survival data using adaptive weights. Biometrics 2010; 66(1): 30–38.

Garès

Andrieu

Dupuy

, et al. A comparison of the constant piecewise weighted logrank and Fleming-Harrington tests. Electron J Stat 2014; 8(1): 841–860.

Karrison

. Versatile tests for comparing survival curves based on weighted log-rank statistics. Stat J 2016; 16(3): 678–690.

Roychoudhury

Anderson

, et al. Robust design and analysis of clinical trials with nonproportional hazards: A straw man guidance from a cross-pharma working group. In: Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research. Taylor & Francis, 2021, pp. 1–15.

Freidlin

Korn

. Methods for accommodating nonproportional hazards in clinical trials: ready for the primary analysis? J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(35): 3455–3459.

Magirr

Burman

. Modestly weighted logrank tests. Stat Med 2019; 38(20): 3782–3790.

Magirr

. Non-proportional hazards in immuno-oncology: is an old perspective needed? Pharm Stat 2021; 20: 512–527.

Fleming

Harrington

. Counting processes and survival analysis, vol. 169. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

10.

Tsiatis

. Repeated significance testing for a general class of statistics used in censored survival analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1982; 77(380): 855–861.

11.

Jennison

Turnbull

. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999.

12.

Whitehead

. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

13.

Gillen

Emerson

. Information growth in a family of weighted logrank statistics under repeated analyses. Sequent Anal 2005; 24(1): 1–22.

14.

Fehrenbacher

Spira

Ballinger

, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387(10030): 1837–1846.

15.

Gandara

Paul

Kowanetz

, et al. Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a predictor of clinical beneﬁt in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with atezolizumab. Nat Med 2018; 24(9): 1441–1448.

16.

Rahman

Fell

Ventz

, et al. Deviation from the proportional hazards assumption in randomized phase 3 clinical trials in oncology: prevalence, associated factors, and implications. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25(21): 6339–6345.

17.

Jiménez

Stalbovskaya

Jones

. Properties of the weighted log-rank test in the design of conﬁrmatory studies with delayed effects. Pharm Stat 2019; 18(3): 287–303.

18.

Hwang

Shih

De Cani

. Group sequential designs using a family of type I error probability spending functions. Stat Med 1990; 9(12): 1439–1445.

19.

Gray

Tsiatis

. A linear rank test for use when the main interest is in differences in cure rates. Biometrics 1989; 45: 899–904.

20.

Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive designs for clinical trials of drugs and biologics: guidance for industry, https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download

21.

Gallo

Mao

Shih

. Alternative views on setting clinical trial futility criteria. J Biopharm Stat 2014; 24(5): 976–993.

22.

Pampallona

Tsiatis

Kim

. Interim monitoring of group sequential trials using spending functions for the type I and type II error probabilities. Drug Inform J 2001; 35(4): 1113–1121.

23.

Lachin

. A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power. Stat Med 2005; 24(18): 2747–2764.

24.

Spiegelhalter

Freedman

Blackburn

. Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power? Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(1): 8–17.

25.

DeMets

Lan

. Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach. Stat Med 1994; 13(13–14): 1341–1352.

26.

Rufibach

. Treatment effect quantification for time-to-event endpoints–estimands, analysis strategies, and beyond. Pharm Stat 2019; 18(2): 145–165.

27.

Jiménez

. Quantifying treatment differences in conﬁrmatory trials under non-proportional hazards. J Appl Stat. Epub ahead of print 3 September 2020. DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2020.1815673.

28.

Lin

León

. Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2017; 8: 147–155.

29.

Bartlett

Morris

Stensrud

, et al. The hazards of period speciﬁc and weighted hazard ratios. Stat Biopharm Res 2020; 12(4): 518–519.

30.

Lin

Roychoudhury

, et al. Rejoinder to letter to the editor ‘The hazards of period specific and weighted hazard ratios’. Stat Biopharm Res 2020; 12(4): 520–521.

31.

Pinheiro

DeMets

. Estimating and reducing bias in group sequential designs with Gaussian independent increment structure. Biometrika 1997; 84(4): 831–845.

32.

Fan

DeMets

Lan

KKG

. Conditional bias of point estimates following a group sequential test. J Biopharm Stat 2004; 14(2): 505–530.

33.

Walter

Guyatt

Bassler

, et al. Randomised trials with provision for early stopping for beneﬁt (or harm): the impact on the estimated treatment effect. Stat Med 2019; 38(14): 2524–2543.

34.

Freidlin

Korn

. Stopping clinical trials early for beneﬁt: impact on estimation. Clin Trials 2009; 6(2): 119–125.

35.

Robertson

Choodari-Oskooei

Dimairo

, et al. Point estimation for adaptive trial designs, https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/141478/1/2105.08836.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB