Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background/aims

For cancers with low incidence, low event rates, and a time-to-event endpoint, a randomized non-inferiority trial designed based on the logrank test can require a large sample size with significantly prolonged enrollment duration, making such a non-inferiority trial not feasible. This article evaluates a design based on a non-inferiority test of proportions, compares its required sample size to the non-inferiority logrank test, assesses whether there are scenarios for which a non-inferiority test of proportions can be more efficient, and provides guidelines in usage of a non-inferiority test of proportions.

Methods

This article describes the sample size calculation for a randomized non-inferiority trial based on a non-inferiority logrank test or a non-inferiority test of proportions. The sample size required by the two design methods are compared for a wide range of scenarios, varying the underlying Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate.

Results

Our results showed that there are scenarios for which the non-inferiority test of proportions can have significantly reduced sample size. Specifically, the non-inferiority test of proportions can be considered for cancers with more than 80% long-term survival rate. We provide guidance in choice of this design approach based on parameters of the Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate.

Conclusion

For cancers with low incidence and low event rates, a non-inferiority trial based on the logrank test is not feasible due to its large required sample size and prolonged enrollment duration. The use of a non-inferiority test of proportions can make a randomized non-inferiority Phase III trial feasible.

Keywords

Phase III non-inferiority design logrank test test of proportions time-to-event endpoint sample size

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chow

Shao

Wang

Sample size calculations in clinical research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008.

Nauta

Statistics in clinical and observational vaccine studies. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, 2020.

Crisp

Curtis

Sample size estimation for non-inferiority trials of time-to-event data. Pharm Stat 2008; 7(4): 236–244.

Phadnis

Mayo

MS.

Sample size calculations for noninferiority trials for time-to-event data using the concept of proportional time. J Appl Stat 2021; 48(6): 1009–1032.

Han

Hou

, et al. Sample size determination in superiority or non-inferiority clinical trials with time-to-event data under exponential, Weibull and Gompertz distributions. Commun Stat: Simul C 2023; 52(4): 1212–1224.

Powers

Cooper

Lin

, et al. Sample size and the ethics of non-inferiority trials. Lancet 2005; 366(9479): 24–25.

Jung

Kang

McCall

, et al. Sample size computation for two-sample noninferiority log-rank test. J Biopharm Stat 2005; 15(6): 969–979.

Dunnett

Gent

Significance testing to establish equivalence between treatments, with special reference to data in the form of 2X2 tables. Biometrics 1977; 33(4): 593–602.

Mehta

Patel

Tsiatis

AA.

Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence with ordered categorical data. Biometrics 1984; 40(3): 819–825.

10.

Durrleman

Simon

Planning and monitoring of equivalence studies. Biometrics 1990; 46(2): 329–336.

11.

Farrington

Manning

Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med 1990; 9(12): 1447–1454.

12.

Blackwelder

WC.

“Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982; 3(4): 345–353.

13.

Mielke

Munk

Schacht

The assessment of non-inferiority in a gold standard design with censored, exponentially distributed endpoints. Stat Med 2008; 27(25): 5093–5110.

14.

Quartagno

Morris

Gilbert

, et al. A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials. Clin Trials 2023; 20(6): 594–602.

15.

Head

Kaul

Bogers

, et al. Non-inferiority study design: lessons to be learned from cardiovascular trials. Eur Heart J 2012; 33(11): 1318–1324.

16.

Lange

Freitag

Choice of delta: requirements and reality—results of a systematic review. Biom J 2005; 47(1): 12–27; discussion 99–107.

17.

Cox

DR.

Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc B Met 1972; 34: 187–202.

18.

George

Desu

MM.

Planning the size and duration of a clinical trial studying the time to some critical event. J Chronic Dis 1974; 27(1): 15–24.

19.

Rubinstein

Gail

Santner

TJ.

Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observation. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34(9–10): 469–479.

20.

Lachin

Foulkes

MA.

Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for nonuniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, noncompliance, and stratification. Biometrics 1986; 42(3): 507–519.

21.

Peto

Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. J R Stat Soc Ser A: G 1972; 135: 185–207.

22.

Schoenfeld

DA.

Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics 1983; 39(2): 499–503.

23.

Lakatos

Sample sizes based on the log-rank statistic in complex clinical trials. Biometrics 1988; 44(1): 229–241.

24.

Yateman

Skene

AM.

Sample sizes for proportional hazards survival studies with arbitrary patient entry and loss to follow-up distributions. Stat Med 1992; 11(8): 1103–1113.

25.

Lakatos

Sample size determination in clinical trials with time-dependent rates of losses and noncompliance. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(3): 189–199.

26.

Freidlin

Korn

George

, et al. Randomized clinical trial design for assessing noninferiority when superiority is expected. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(31): 5019–5023.

27.

Quartagno

Morris

White

IR.

Why restricted mean survival time methods are especially useful for non-inferiority trials. Clin Trials 2021; 18(6): 743–745.

28.

Quartagno

Walker

Babiker

, et al. Handling an uncertain control group event risk in non-inferiority trials: non-inferiority frontiers and the power-stabilising transformation. Trials 2020; 21(1): 145.

29.

Freidlin

Korn

EL.

Reply to Quartagno et al. Clin Trials 2021; 18(6): 746.

30.

Freidlin

Korn

EL.

Are restricted mean survival time methods especially useful for noninferiority trials?

Clin Trials 2021; 18(2): 188–196.

31.

Freidlin

Korn

EL.

Methods for accommodating nonproportional hazards in clinical trials: ready for the primary analysis?

J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(35): 3455–3459.

32.

Roebruck

Kühn

Comparison of tests and sample size formulae for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities. Stat Med 1995; 14(14): 1583–1594.

33.

Hunger

Devidas

, et al. Improved survival for children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia between 1990 and 2005: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(14): 1663–1669.

34.

Kaatsch

Häfner

Calaminus

, et al. Pediatric germ cell tumors from 1987 to 2011: incidence rates, time trends, and survival. Pediatrics 2015; 135(1): e136–e143.

35.

Kalbfleisch

Prentice

RL.

The statistical analysis of failure time data. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

36.

Puthenpura

, et al. Loss to follow-up of minorities, adolescents, and young adults on clinical trials: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Cancer 2023; 129(10): 1547–1556.

37.

Peto

Pike

Armitage

, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer 1976; 34(6): 585–612.

38.

Cook

Fergusson

Ford

, et al. There is still a place for significance testing in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2019; 16(3): 223–224.

39.

Royston

Parmar

MK.

Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med 2002; 21(15): 2175–2197.

40.

Denz

Klaaßen-Mielke

Timmesfeld

A comparison of different methods to adjust survival curves for confounders. Stat Med 2023; 42(10): 1461–1479.

41.

Makuch

RW.

Adjusted survival curve estimation using covariates. J Chronic Dis 1982; 35(6): 437–443.

42.

Cole

Hernán

MA.

Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004; 75(1): 45–49.

43.

Austin

PC.

The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 2014; 33(7): 1242–1258.

44.

Xie

Liu

Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Stat Med 2005; 24(20): 3089–3110.

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

2.04 MB

Using non-inferiority test of proportions in design of randomized non-inferiority trials with time-to-event endpoint with a focus on low-event-rate setting

Abstract

Background/aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material