Boris Freidlin1, Chen Hu2, Edward L Korn1. 1. Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restricted mean survival time methods compare the areas under the Kaplan-Meier curves up to a time τ for the control and experimental treatments. Extraordinary claims have been made about the benefits (in terms of dramatically smaller required sample sizes) when using restricted mean survival time methods as compared to proportional hazards methods for analyzing noninferiority trials, even when the true survival distributions satisfy proportional hazardss. METHODS: Through some limited simulations and asymptotic power calculations, the authors compare the operating characteristics of restricted mean survival time and proportional hazards methods for analyzing both noninferiority and superiority trials under proportional hazardss to understand what relative power benefits there are when using restricted mean survival time methods for noninferiority testing. RESULTS: In the setting of low-event rates, very large targeted noninferiority margins, and limited follow-up past τ, restricted mean survival time methods have more power than proportional hazards methods. For superiority testing, proportional hazards methods have more power. This is not a small-sample phenomenon but requires a low-event rate and a large noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION: Although there are special settings where restricted mean survival time methods have a power advantage over proportional hazards methods for testing noninferiority, the larger issue in these settings is defining appropriate noninferiority margins. We find the restricted mean survival time methods lacking in these regards.
BACKGROUND: Restricted mean survival time methods compare the areas under the Kaplan-Meier curves up to a time τ for the control and experimental treatments. Extraordinary claims have been made about the benefits (in terms of dramatically smaller required sample sizes) when using restricted mean survival time methods as compared to proportional hazards methods for analyzing noninferiority trials, even when the true survival distributions satisfy proportional hazardss. METHODS: Through some limited simulations and asymptotic power calculations, the authors compare the operating characteristics of restricted mean survival time and proportional hazards methods for analyzing both noninferiority and superiority trials under proportional hazardss to understand what relative power benefits there are when using restricted mean survival time methods for noninferiority testing. RESULTS: In the setting of low-event rates, very large targeted noninferiority margins, and limited follow-up past τ, restricted mean survival time methods have more power than proportional hazards methods. For superiority testing, proportional hazards methods have more power. This is not a small-sample phenomenon but requires a low-event rate and a large noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION: Although there are special settings where restricted mean survival time methods have a power advantage over proportional hazards methods for testing noninferiority, the larger issue in these settings is defining appropriate noninferiority margins. We find the restricted mean survival time methods lacking in these regards.
Authors: Benjamin M Scirica; Deepak L Bhatt; Eugene Braunwald; P Gabriel Steg; Jaime Davidson; Boaz Hirshberg; Peter Ohman; Robert Frederich; Stephen D Wiviott; Elaine B Hoffman; Matthew A Cavender; Jacob A Udell; Nihar R Desai; Ofri Mosenzon; Darren K McGuire; Kausik K Ray; Lawrence A Leiter; Itamar Raz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David H Manner; Chakib Battioui; Stefan Hantel; B Nhi Beasley; Lee-Jen Wei; Mary Jane Geiger; J Rick Turner; Markus Abt Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245