Haesook Teresa Kim1, Robert Gray. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. kim.haesook@jimmy.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cure rate models have been extensively studied and widely used in time-to-event data in cancer clinical trials. PURPOSE: Although cure rate models based on the generalized exponential distribution have been developed, they have not been used in the design of randomized cancer clinical trials, which instead have relied exclusively on two-component exponential cure rate model with a proportional hazards (PH) alternative. In some studies, the efficacy of the experimental treatment is expected to emerge some time after randomization. Since this does not conform to a PH alternative, such studies require a more flexible model to describe the alternative hypothesis. METHODS: In this article, we report the study design of a phase III clinical trial of acute myeloid leukemia using a three-component exponential cure rate model to reflect the alternative hypothesis. A newly developed power calculation program that does not require PH assumption was used. RESULTS: Using a custom-made three-component cure rate model as an alternative hypothesis, the proposed sample size was 409, compared with a sample size of 209 under the assumption of exponential distribution and 228 under the PH alternative. A simulation study was performed to present the degree of power loss when the alternative hypothesis is not appropriately specified. LIMITATIONS: The power calculation program used in this study is for a single analysis and does not account for group sequential tests in phase III trials. However, the loss in power is small, and this was handled by inflating the sample size by 5%. CONCLUSION: Misspecification of the alternative hypothesis can result in a seriously underpowered study. We report examples of clinical trials that required a custom-made alternative hypothesis to reflect a later indication of experimental treatment efficacy. The proposed three-component cure rate model could be very useful for specifying non-PH alternative.
BACKGROUND: Cure rate models have been extensively studied and widely used in time-to-event data in cancer clinical trials. PURPOSE: Although cure rate models based on the generalized exponential distribution have been developed, they have not been used in the design of randomized cancer clinical trials, which instead have relied exclusively on two-component exponential cure rate model with a proportional hazards (PH) alternative. In some studies, the efficacy of the experimental treatment is expected to emerge some time after randomization. Since this does not conform to a PH alternative, such studies require a more flexible model to describe the alternative hypothesis. METHODS: In this article, we report the study design of a phase III clinical trial of acute myeloid leukemia using a three-component exponential cure rate model to reflect the alternative hypothesis. A newly developed power calculation program that does not require PH assumption was used. RESULTS: Using a custom-made three-component cure rate model as an alternative hypothesis, the proposed sample size was 409, compared with a sample size of 209 under the assumption of exponential distribution and 228 under the PH alternative. A simulation study was performed to present the degree of power loss when the alternative hypothesis is not appropriately specified. LIMITATIONS: The power calculation program used in this study is for a single analysis and does not account for group sequential tests in phase III trials. However, the loss in power is small, and this was handled by inflating the sample size by 5%. CONCLUSION: Misspecification of the alternative hypothesis can result in a seriously underpowered study. We report examples of clinical trials that required a custom-made alternative hypothesis to reflect a later indication of experimental treatment efficacy. The proposed three-component cure rate model could be very useful for specifying non-PH alternative.
Authors: Lawrence V Rubinstein; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Sally Hunsberger; S Percy Ivy; Malcolm A Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lesley Seymour; S Percy Ivy; Daniel Sargent; David Spriggs; Laurence Baker; Larry Rubinstein; Mark J Ratain; Michael Le Blanc; David Stewart; John Crowley; Susan Groshen; Jeffrey S Humphrey; Pamela West; Donald Berry Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Emilio Paolo Alessandrino; Matteo Giovanni Della Porta; Andrea Bacigalupo; Maria Teresa Van Lint; Michele Falda; Francesco Onida; Massimo Bernardi; Anna Paola Iori; Alessandro Rambaldi; Raffaella Cerretti; Paola Marenco; Pietro Pioltelli; Luca Malcovati; Cristiana Pascutto; Rosi Oneto; Renato Fanin; Alberto Bosi Journal: Blood Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Luca Malcovati; Ulrich Germing; Andrea Kuendgen; Matteo G Della Porta; Cristiana Pascutto; Rosangela Invernizzi; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Barbara Hildebrandt; Paolo Bernasconi; Sabine Knipp; Corinna Strupp; Mario Lazzarino; Carlo Aul; Mario Cazzola Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vincent T Ho; Haesook T Kim; Jennifer Brock; Ilene Galinsky; Heather Daley; Carol Reynolds; Augustine Weber; Olga Pozdnyakova; Mariano Severgnini; Sarah Nikiforow; Corey Cutler; John Koreth; Edwin P Alyea; Joseph H Antin; Mahasweta Gooptu; Rizwan Romee; Roman Shapiro; Yi-Bin Chen; Jacalyn Rosenblatt; David Avigan; F Stephen Hodi; Glenn Dranoff; Catherine J Wu; Jerome Ritz; Robert J Soiffer Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-04-12
Authors: Gregory A Abel; Haesook T Kim; Andrew Hantel; David P Steensma; Richard Stone; Anand Habib; Vincent T Ho; Martha Wadleigh; Areej El-Jawahri; Edwin P Alyea; Daniel J DeAngelo; John Koreth; Joseph H Antin; Robert J Soiffer; Corey Cutler Journal: Leukemia Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 11.528