Literature DB >> 32628533

Analysis of Response Data for Assessing Treatment Effects in Comparative Clinical Studies.

Bo Huang1, Lu Tian2, Zachary R McCaw3, Xiaodong Luo4, Enayet Talukder1, Mace Rothenberg5, Wanling Xie6, Toni K Choueiri6, Dae Hyun Kim7, Lee-Jen Wei8.   

Abstract

In comparative studies, treatment effect is often assessed using a binary outcome that indicates response to the therapy. Commonly used summary measures for response include the cumulative and current response rates at a specific time point. The current response rate is sometimes called the probability of being in response (PBIR), which regards a patient as a responder only if they have achieved and remain in response at present. The methods used in practice for estimating these rates, however, may not be appropriate. Moreover, whereas an effective treatment is expected to achieve a rapid and sustained response, the response at a fixed time point does not provide information about the duration of response (DOR). As an alternative, a curve constructed from the current response rates over the entire study period may be considered, which can be used for visualizing how rapidly patients responded to therapy and how long responses were sustained. The area under the PBIR curve is the mean DOR. This connection between response and DOR makes this curve attractive for assessing the treatment effect. In contrast to the conventional method for analyzing the DOR data, which uses responders only, the above procedure includes all patients in the study. Although discussed extensively in the statistical literature, estimation of the current response rate curve has garnered little attention in the medical literature. This article illustrates how to construct and analyze such a curve using data from a recent study for treating renal cell carcinoma. Clinical trialists are encouraged to consider this robust and clinically interpretable procedure as an additional tool for evaluating treatment effects in clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32628533      PMCID: PMC7773521          DOI: 10.7326/M20-0104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  10 in total

1.  Analysis of duration of response in oncology trials.

Authors:  Stuart Ellis; Kevin J Carroll; Kristine Pemberton
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2007-11-12       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Non-parametric inference for cumulative incidence functions in competing risks studies.

Authors:  D Y Lin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Response Rate as an Approval End Point in Oncology: Back to the Future.

Authors:  Gideon M Blumenthal; Richard Pazdur
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

4.  Viral suppression in HIV studies: combining times to suppression and rebound.

Authors:  Natalia A Gouskova; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Evaluating Treatment Effect Based on Duration of Response for a Comparative Oncology Study.

Authors:  Bo Huang; Lu Tian; Enayet Talukder; Mace Rothenberg; Dae Hyun Kim; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Analysis of duration of response: a problem of oncology trials.

Authors:  T M Morgan
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1988-03

7.  Effect of a Proposed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Compared With Trastuzumab on Overall Response Rate in Patients With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Hope S Rugo; Abhijit Barve; Cornelius F Waller; Miguel Hernandez-Bronchud; Jay Herson; Jinyu Yuan; Rajiv Sharma; Mark Baczkowski; Mudgal Kothekar; Subramanian Loganathan; Alexey Manikhas; Igor Bondarenko; Guzel Mukhametshina; Gia Nemsadze; Joseph D Parra; Maria Luisa T Abesamis-Tiambeng; Kakhaber Baramidze; Charuwan Akewanlop; Ihor Vynnychenko; Virote Sriuranpong; Gopichand Mamillapalli; Sirshendu Ray; Eduardo P Yanez Ruiz; Eduardo Pennella
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

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

9.  Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent?

Authors:  D T Felson; J J Anderson; M L Lange; G Wells; M P LaValley
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1998-09

10.  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
  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Analysis of Outcomes With Addition of Immunotherapy to Chemoradiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Lu Tian; Bo Huang; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Treatment-free Survival after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy versus Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Results of the CheckMate 214 Trial.

Authors:  Meredith M Regan; Opeyemi A Jegede; Charlene M Mantia; Thomas Powles; Lillian Werner; Robert J Motzer; Nizar M Tannir; Chung-Han Lee; Yoshihiko Tomita; Martin H Voss; Elizabeth R Plimack; Toni K Choueiri; Brian I Rini; Hans J Hammers; Bernard Escudier; Laurence Albiges; Stephen Huo; Viviana Del Tejo; Brian Stwalley; Michael B Atkins; David F McDermott
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 13.801

3.  Treatment-free survival over extended follow-up of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in CheckMate 067.

Authors:  Meredith M Regan; Charlene M Mantia; Lillian Werner; Ahmad A Tarhini; James Larkin; F Stephen Hodi; Jedd Wolchok; Michael A Postow; Brian Stwalley; Andriy Moshyk; Corey Ritchings; Sandra Re; Wim van Dijck; David F McDermott; Michael B Atkins
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 13.751

4.  Comparison of Duration of Response vs Conventional Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival as Efficacy End Points in Simulated Immuno-oncology Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Chen Hu; Meihua Wang; Cai Wu; Heng Zhou; Cong Chen; Scott Diede
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-05-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.