E L Korn1, M Othus2, T Chen3,4, B Freidlin1. 1. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. 3. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton. 4. Columbia University, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Durability of response is a clinically relevant dimension of the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials; it is often measured by comparing among the responders the duration of response between the treatment arms. However, since the comparison groups are defined by response (a post-randomization event), it is subject to analysis-by-responder bias, especially if the proportion of responders differs between the arms. METHODS: Two simple methods are developed that use tumor shrinkage measurements in order to lessen analysis-by-responder bias by generating more comparable patient subsets in the control and experimental arms of the trial. These subsets are then used to estimate between-arm differences in response duration. In the subtraction method, responding patients with the least tumor shrinkage in the treatment arm with more responders are removed from the patient subset for that arm. In the addition method, non-responding patients with the most tumor shrinkage in the treatment arm with fewer responders are added to the patient subset for that arm. In both methods, the numbers of patients subtracted or added are such that the proportion of patients in the modified patient subset is the same as the proportion of responders in the other treatment arm. RESULTS: The methods are demonstrated on a hypothetical dataset where they are shown to eliminate analysis-by-responder bias, and on two published analyses of randomized trials that compared the duration of response between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methods can lessen the analysis-by-responder bias. These methods to compare duration of response between treatment arms may provide a useful exploratory analysis to measure treatment efficacy among responders.
BACKGROUND: Durability of response is a clinically relevant dimension of the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials; it is often measured by comparing among the responders the duration of response between the treatment arms. However, since the comparison groups are defined by response (a post-randomization event), it is subject to analysis-by-responder bias, especially if the proportion of responders differs between the arms. METHODS: Two simple methods are developed that use tumor shrinkage measurements in order to lessen analysis-by-responder bias by generating more comparable patient subsets in the control and experimental arms of the trial. These subsets are then used to estimate between-arm differences in response duration. In the subtraction method, responding patients with the least tumor shrinkage in the treatment arm with more responders are removed from the patient subset for that arm. In the addition method, non-responding patients with the most tumor shrinkage in the treatment arm with fewer responders are added to the patient subset for that arm. In both methods, the numbers of patients subtracted or added are such that the proportion of patients in the modified patient subset is the same as the proportion of responders in the other treatment arm. RESULTS: The methods are demonstrated on a hypothetical dataset where they are shown to eliminate analysis-by-responder bias, and on two published analyses of randomized trials that compared the duration of response between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methods can lessen the analysis-by-responder bias. These methods to compare duration of response between treatment arms may provide a useful exploratory analysis to measure treatment efficacy among responders.
Authors: Antonio Palumbo; Asher Chanan-Khan; Katja Weisel; Ajay K Nooka; Tamas Masszi; Meral Beksac; Ivan Spicka; Vania Hungria; Markus Munder; Maria V Mateos; Tomer M Mark; Ming Qi; Jordan Schecter; Himal Amin; Xiang Qin; William Deraedt; Tahamtan Ahmadi; Andrew Spencer; Pieter Sonneveld Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Peter L Greenberg; John M Bennett; Bob Lowenberg; Pierre W Wijermans; Stephen D Nimer; Antonio Pinto; Miloslav Beran; Theo M de Witte; Richard M Stone; Moshe Mittelman; Guillermo F Sanz; Steven D Gore; Charles A Schiffer; Hagop Kantarjian Journal: Blood Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mikkael A Sekeres; Megan Othus; Alan F List; Olatoyosi Odenike; Richard M Stone; Steven D Gore; Mark R Litzow; Rena Buckstein; Min Fang; Diane Roulston; Clara D Bloomfield; Anna Moseley; Aziz Nazha; Yanming Zhang; Mario R Velasco; Rakesh Gaur; Ehab Atallah; Eyal C Attar; Elina K Cook; Alyssa H Cull; Michael J Rauh; Frederick R Appelbaum; Harry P Erba Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 50.717