Literature DB >> 34272897

Sample size calculation for two-arm trials with time-to-event endpoint for nonproportional hazards using the concept of Relative Time when inference is built on comparing Weibull distributions.

Milind A Phadnis1, Matthew S Mayo1.   

Abstract

Sample size calculations for two-arm clinical trials with a time-to-event endpoint have traditionally used the assumption of proportional hazards (PH) or the assumption of exponentially distributed survival times. Available software provides methods for sample size calculation using a nonparametric logrank test, Schoenfeld's formula for Cox PH model, or parametric calculations specific to the exponential distribution. In cases where the PH assumption is not valid, the first-choice method is to compute sample size assuming a piecewise linear survival curve (Lakatos approach) for both the control and treatment arms with judiciously chosen cut-points. Recent advances in literature have used the assumption of Weibull distributed times for single-arm trials, and, newer methods have emerged that allow sample size calculations for two-arm trials using the assumption of proportional time (PT) while considering non-PH. These methods, however, always assume an instantaneous effect of treatment relative to control requiring that the effect size be defined by a single number whose magnitude is preserved throughout the trial duration. Here, we consider the scenarios where the hypothesized benefit of treatment relative to control may not be constant giving rise to the notion of Relative Time (RT). By assuming that survival times for control and treatment arm come from two different Weibull distributions with different location and shape parameters, we develop the methodology for sample size calculation for specific cases of both non-PH and non-PT. Simulations are conducted to assess the operation characteristics of the proposed method and a practical example is discussed.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Weibull; longevity; non-proportional hazards; proportional time; relative time; time-to-event

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34272897      PMCID: PMC8497393          DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202000043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   1.715


  19 in total

1.  Longevity and concentration in survival times: the log-scale-location family of failure time models.

Authors:  Chiara Gigliarano; Ugofilippo Basellini; Marco Bonetti
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  A comparison of sample size methods for the logrank statistic.

Authors:  E Lakatos; K K Lan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Sample size calculation for the one-sample log-rank test.

Authors:  Jianrong Wu
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 1.894

Review 4.  Nonproportional Hazards for Time-to-Event Outcomes in Clinical Trials: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Authors:  John Gregson; Linda Sharples; Gregg W Stone; Carl-Fredrik Burman; Fredrik Öhrn; Stuart Pocock
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model.

Authors:  D A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Tables of the number of patients required in clinical trials using the logrank test.

Authors:  L S Freedman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1982 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for nonuniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, noncompliance, and stratification.

Authors:  J M Lachin; M A Foulkes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  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

9.  Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Tony S K Mok; Yi-Long Wu; Iveta Kudaba; Dariusz M Kowalski; Byoung Chul Cho; Hande Z Turna; Gilberto Castro; Vichien Srimuninnimit; Konstantin K Laktionov; Igor Bondarenko; Kaoru Kubota; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Jin Zhang; Debra Kush; Gilberto Lopes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Assessing accuracy of Weibull shape parameter estimate from historical studies for subsequent sample size calculation in clinical trials with time-to-event outcome.

Authors:  Milind A Phadnis; Palash Sharma; Nadeesha Thewarapperuma; Prabhakar Chalise
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2020-02-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.