Kyongsun Pak1, Hajime Uno2, Dae Hyun Kim3,4, Lu Tian5, Robert C Kane6, Masahiro Takeuchi1, Haoda Fu7, Brian Claggett8, Lee-Jen Wei9. 1. Department of Clinical Medicine (Biostatistics), Kitasato University School of Pharmacy, 5-9-1 Shirokane, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0072, Japan 2. Division of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 4. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 5. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 6. Hematology Oncology OPinions, Nokomis, Florida 7. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana 8. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 9. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Abstract
Importance: In a comparative clinical study with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as the end point, the hazard ratio (HR) is routinely used to design the study and to estimate the treatment effect at the end of the study. The clinical interpretation of the HR may not be straightforward, especially when the underlying model assumption is not valid. A robust procedure for study design and analysis that enables clinically meaningful interpretation of trial results is warranted. Objective: To discuss issues of conventional trial design and analysis and to present alternatives to the HR using a recent immunotherapy study as an illustrative example. Design, Setting, and Participants: By comparing 2 groups in a survival analysis, we discuss issues of using the HR and present the restricted mean survival time (RMST) as a summary measure of patients’ survival profile over time. We show how to use the difference or ratio in RMST between 2 groups as an alternative for designing and analyzing a clinical study with an immunotherapy study as an illustrative example. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival or PFS. Group contrast measures included HR, RMST difference or ratio, and the event rate difference. Results: For the illustrative example, the HR procedure indicates that nivolumab significantly prolonged patient OS and was numerically better than docetaxel for PFS. However, the median PFS time of docetaxel was significantly better than that of nivolumab. Therefore, it may be difficult to use median OS and/or PFS to interpret of the HR value clinically. On the other hand, using RMST difference, nivolumab was significantly better than docetaxel for both OS and PFS. We also provide details regarding design of a future study with RMST-based measures. Conclusions and Relevance: The design and analysis of a conventional cancer clinical trial can be improved by adopting a robust statistical procedure that enables clinically meaningful interpretations of the treatment effect. The RMST-based quantitative method may be used as a primary tool for future cancer trials or to help us to better understand the clinical interpretation of the HR even when its model assumption is plausible.
Importance: In a comparative clinical study with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as the end point, the hazard ratio (HR) is routinely used to design the study and to estimate the treatment effect at the end of the study. The clinical interpretation of the HR may not be straightforward, especially when the underlying model assumption is not valid. A robust procedure for study design and analysis that enables clinically meaningful interpretation of trial results is warranted. Objective: To discuss issues of conventional trial design and analysis and to present alternatives to the HR using a recent immunotherapy study as an illustrative example. Design, Setting, and Participants: By comparing 2 groups in a survival analysis, we discuss issues of using the HR and present the restricted mean survival time (RMST) as a summary measure of patients’ survival profile over time. We show how to use the difference or ratio in RMST between 2 groups as an alternative for designing and analyzing a clinical study with an immunotherapy study as an illustrative example. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival or PFS. Group contrast measures included HR, RMST difference or ratio, and the event rate difference. Results: For the illustrative example, the HR procedure indicates that nivolumab significantly prolonged patient OS and was numerically better than docetaxel for PFS. However, the median PFS time of docetaxel was significantly better than that of nivolumab. Therefore, it may be difficult to use median OS and/or PFS to interpret of the HR value clinically. On the other hand, using RMST difference, nivolumab was significantly better than docetaxel for both OS and PFS. We also provide details regarding design of a future study with RMST-based measures. Conclusions and Relevance: The design and analysis of a conventional cancer clinical trial can be improved by adopting a robust statistical procedure that enables clinically meaningful interpretations of the treatment effect. The RMST-based quantitative method may be used as a primary tool for future cancer trials or to help us to better understand the clinical interpretation of the HR even when its model assumption is plausible.
Authors: David P Carbone; Martin Reck; Luis Paz-Ares; Benjamin Creelan; Leora Horn; Martin Steins; Enriqueta Felip; Michel M van den Heuvel; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Firas Badin; Neal Ready; T Jeroen N Hiltermann; Suresh Nair; Rosalyn Juergens; Solange Peters; Elisa Minenza; John M Wrangle; Delvys Rodriguez-Abreu; Hossein Borghaei; George R Blumenschein; Liza C Villaruz; Libor Havel; Jana Krejci; Jesus Corral Jaime; Han Chang; William J Geese; Prabhu Bhagavatheeswaran; Allen C Chen; Mark A Socinski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hajime Uno; Janet Wittes; Haoda Fu; Scott D Solomon; Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott R Evans; Lee-Jen Wei Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Matthew D Galsky; Amir Mortazavi; Matthew I Milowsky; Saby George; Sumati Gupta; Mark T Fleming; Long H Dang; Daniel M Geynisman; Radhika Walling; Robert S Alter; Mohamad Kassar; Jue Wang; Shilpa Gupta; Nancy Davis; Joel Picus; George Philips; David I Quinn; G Kenneth Haines; Noah M Hahn; Qianqian Zhao; Menggang Yu; Sumanta K Pal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Raphaël Porcher; Edward Cantu; Michael J Crowther; Jason D Christie; Gabriel Thabut; Gavin C Donaldson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Eugene H Blackstone; Helena L Chang; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Michael K Parides; Hemant Ishwaran; Liang Li; John Ehrlinger; Annetine C Gelijns; Alan J Moskowitz; Michael Argenziano; Joseph J DeRose; Jean-Phillipe Couderc; Dan Balda; François Dagenais; Michael J Mack; Gorav Ailawadi; Peter K Smith; Michael A Acker; Patrick T O'Gara; A Marc Gillinov Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 5.209