Literature DB >> 30201741

How Do the Accrual Pattern and Follow-Up Duration Affect the Hazard Ratio Estimate When the Proportional Hazards Assumption Is Violated?

Miki Horiguchi1, Michael J Hassett2, Hajime Uno3,4.   

Abstract

In randomized clinical trials, the magnitude of the treatment effect is often reported using the hazard ratio (HR) even when the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is not met. Conducting numerical studies, this commentary illustrates how/why the HR estimate via the standard Cox's procedure is difficult to interpret even as an “average” treatment effect for non‐PH cases.

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Cox proportional hazards model; Survival data analysis; Time‐to‐event outcomes

Mesh：

Year:  2018        PMID： 30201741      PMCID： PMC6656438          DOI： 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN： 1083-7159


  16 in total

1.  Simultaneous inferences on the contrast of two hazard functions with censored observations.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; L J Wei; Michael R Kosorok; John D Clemens
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Eisuke Inoue; Paul Gallo; Toshio Miyata; Deborah Schrag; Masahiro Takeuchi; Yoshiaki Uyama; Lihui Zhao; Hicham Skali; Scott Solomon; Susanna Jacobus; Michael Hughes; Milton Packer; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Phase III study comparing exemestane with tamoxifen as first-line hormonal treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group.

Authors:  Robert J Paridaens; Luc Y Dirix; Louk V Beex; Marianne Nooij; David A Cameron; Tanja Cufer; Martine J Piccart; Jan Bogaerts; Patrick Therasse
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-09-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  On the restricted mean survival time curve in survival analysis.

Authors:  Lihui Zhao; Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Hajime Uno; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon; Lorenzo Trippa; L J Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Alternatives to Hazard Ratios for Comparing the Efficacy or Safety of Therapies in Noninferiority Studies.

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

7.  Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

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

8.  Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Hansjochen Wilke; Kei Muro; Eric Van Cutsem; Sang-Cheul Oh; György Bodoky; Yasuhiro Shimada; Shuichi Hironaka; Naotoshi Sugimoto; Oleg Lipatov; Tae-You Kim; David Cunningham; Philippe Rougier; Yoshito Komatsu; Jaffer Ajani; Michael Emig; Roberto Carlesi; David Ferry; Kumari Chandrawansa; Jonathan D Schwartz; Atsushi Ohtsu
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

Authors:  Patricia Guyot; A E Ades; Mario J N M Ouwens; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.615
View more
  4 in total

1.  Statistical Test/Estimation Methods Used in Contemporary Phase III Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials with Time-to-Event Outcomes.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Miki Horiguchi; Michael J Hassett
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-19

2.  Impact of limited sample size and follow-up on single event survival extrapolation for health technology assessment: a simulation study.

Authors:  Jaclyn M Beca; Kelvin K W Chan; David M J Naimark; Petros Pechlivanoglou
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Assessing Clinical Equivalence in Oncology Biosimilar Trials With Time-to-Event Outcomes.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Deborah Schrag; Dae Hyun Kim; Dejun Tang; Lu Tian; Hope S Rugo; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-08-01

4.  Challenges of modelling approaches for network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards to aid decision making: Application to a melanoma network.

Authors:  Suzanne C Freeman; Nicola J Cooper; Alex J Sutton; Michael J Crowther; James R Carpenter; Neil Hawkins
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.494
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.