Literature DB >> 27239255

A Multi-state Model for Designing Clinical Trials for Testing Overall Survival Allowing for Crossover after Progression.

Fang Xia1, Stephen L George1, Xiaofei Wang1.   

Abstract

In designing a clinical trial for comparing two or more treatments with respect to overall survival (OS), a proportional hazards assumption is commonly made. However, in many cancer clinical trials, patients pass through various disease states prior to death and because of this may receive treatments other than originally assigned. For example, patients may crossover from the control treatment to the experimental treatment at progression. Even without crossover, the survival pattern after progression may be very different than the pattern prior to progression. The proportional hazards assumption will not hold in these situations and the design power calculated on this assumption will not be correct. In this paper we describe a simple and intuitive multi-state model allowing for progression, death before progression, post-progression survival and crossover after progression and apply this model to the design of clinical trials for comparing the OS of two treatments. For given values of the parameters of the multi-state model, we simulate the required number of deaths to achieve a specified power and the distribution of time required to achieve the requisite number of deaths. The results may be quite different from those derived using the usual PH assumption.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Crossover; Multi-state survival model; Overall survival; Progression-free survival; Sample size

Year:  2016        PMID: 27239255      PMCID: PMC4879617          DOI: 10.1080/19466315.2015.1093539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res        ISSN: 1946-6315            Impact factor:   1.452


  35 in total

Review 1.  Multi-state models: a review.

Authors:  P Hougaard
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Multi-state models and outcome prediction in bone marrow transplantation.

Authors:  N Keiding; J P Klein; M M Horowitz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Competing risks as a multi-state model.

Authors:  Per Kragh Andersen; Steen Z Abildstrom; Susanne Rosthøj
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests.

Authors:  J M Robins; D M Finkelstein
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Conservative treatment of mild/moderate cervical dyskaryosis: long-term outcome.

Authors:  A J Kirby; D J Spiegelhalter; N E Day; L Fenton; K Swanson; E M Mann; J E Macgregor
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-04-04       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A comparison of sample size methods for the logrank statistic.

Authors:  E Lakatos; K K Lan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Estimation of current leukaemia-free survival following donor lymphocyte infusion therapy for patients with leukaemia who relapse after allografting: application of a multistate model.

Authors:  J P Klein; R M Szydlo; C Craddock; J M Goldman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease.

Authors:  D M Lloyd-Jones; M G Larson; A Beiser; D Levy
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment.

Authors:  Michael Branson; John Whitehead
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-09-15       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Evaluation of sample size and power for multi-arm survival trials allowing for non-uniform accrual, non-proportional hazards, loss to follow-up and cross-over.

Authors:  F M-S Barthel; A Babiker; P Royston; M K B Parmar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  2 in total

1.  Design and sample size considerations for Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using multistate models.

Authors:  Ron Brookmeyer; Nada Abdalla
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Application of multi-state models in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Ryan A Peterson; Terry M Therneau; Ben L Sanford; Richard M Stone; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 2.486

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.