BACKGROUND: Measurement error in time-to-event end points complicates interpretation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Non-differential measurement error is unlikely to produce large bias [1]. When error depends on treatment arm, bias is of greater concern. Blinded-independent central review (BICR) of all images from a trial is commonly undertaken to mitigate differential measurement-error bias that may be present in hazard ratios (HRs) based on local evaluations. Similar BICR and local evaluation HRs may provide reassurance about the treatment effect, but BICR adds considerable time and expense to trials. METHODS: We describe a BICR audit strategy [2] and apply it to five randomized controlled trials to evaluate its use and to provide practical guidelines. The strategy requires BICR on a subset of study subjects, rather than a complete-case BICR, and makes use of an auxiliary-variable estimator. RESULTS: When the effect size is relatively large, the method provides a substantial reduction in the size of the BICRs. In a trial with 722 participants and a HR of 0.48, an average audit of 28% of the data was needed and always confirmed the treatment effect as assessed by local evaluations. More moderate effect sizes and/or smaller trial sizes required larger proportions of audited images, ranging from 57% to 100% for HRs ranging from 0.55 to 0.77 and sample sizes between 209 and 737. LIMITATIONS: The method is developed for a simple random sample of study subjects. In studies with low event rates, more efficient estimation may result from sampling individuals with events at a higher rate. CONCLUSION: The proposed strategy can greatly decrease the costs and time associated with BICR, by reducing the number of images undergoing review. The savings will depend on the underlying treatment effect and trial size, with larger treatment effects and larger trials requiring smaller proportions of audited data.
BACKGROUND: Measurement error in time-to-event end points complicates interpretation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Non-differential measurement error is unlikely to produce large bias [1]. When error depends on treatment arm, bias is of greater concern. Blinded-independent central review (BICR) of all images from a trial is commonly undertaken to mitigate differential measurement-error bias that may be present in hazard ratios (HRs) based on local evaluations. Similar BICR and local evaluation HRs may provide reassurance about the treatment effect, but BICR adds considerable time and expense to trials. METHODS: We describe a BICR audit strategy [2] and apply it to five randomized controlled trials to evaluate its use and to provide practical guidelines. The strategy requires BICR on a subset of study subjects, rather than a complete-case BICR, and makes use of an auxiliary-variable estimator. RESULTS: When the effect size is relatively large, the method provides a substantial reduction in the size of the BICRs. In a trial with 722 participants and a HR of 0.48, an average audit of 28% of the data was needed and always confirmed the treatment effect as assessed by local evaluations. More moderate effect sizes and/or smaller trial sizes required larger proportions of audited images, ranging from 57% to 100% for HRs ranging from 0.55 to 0.77 and sample sizes between 209 and 737. LIMITATIONS: The method is developed for a simple random sample of study subjects. In studies with low event rates, more efficient estimation may result from sampling individuals with events at a higher rate. CONCLUSION: The proposed strategy can greatly decrease the costs and time associated with BICR, by reducing the number of images undergoing review. The savings will depend on the underlying treatment effect and trial size, with larger treatment effects and larger trials requiring smaller proportions of audited data.
Authors: Lori E Dodd; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; C Carl Jaffe; Lawrence V Rubinstein; Janet Dancey; Margaret M Mooney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles E Geyer; John Forster; Deborah Lindquist; Stephen Chan; C Gilles Romieu; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Agnieszka Jagiello-Gruszfeld; John Crown; Arlene Chan; Bella Kaufman; Dimosthenis Skarlos; Mario Campone; Neville Davidson; Mark Berger; Cristina Oliva; Stephen D Rubin; Steven Stein; David Cameron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Joseph Schulz; Michael McCleod; Taral Patel; John T Hamm; J Randolph Hecht; Robert Mass; Brent Perrou; Betty Nelson; William F Novotny Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kimberly L Blackwell; Harold J Burstein; Anna Maria Storniolo; Hope Rugo; George Sledge; Maria Koehler; Catherine Ellis; Michelle Casey; Svetislava Vukelja; Joachim Bischoff; Jose Baselga; Joyce O'Shaughnessy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eva S Thomas; Henry L Gomez; Rubi K Li; Hyun-Cheol Chung; Luis E Fein; Valorie F Chan; Jacek Jassem; Xavier B Pivot; Judith V Klimovsky; Fernando Hurtado de Mendoza; Binghe Xu; Mario Campone; Guillermo L Lerzo; Ronald A Peck; Pralay Mukhopadhyay; Linda T Vahdat; Henri H Roché Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544