BACKGROUND: The call for patient-focused drug development is loud and clear, as expressed in the twenty-first Century Cures Act and in recent guidelines and initiatives of regulatory agencies. Among the factors contributing to modernized drug development and improved health-care activities are easily interpretable measures of clinical benefit. In addition, special care is needed for cancer trials with time-to-event endpoints if the treatment effect is not constant over time. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the potential clinical survival benefit for a new patient, would he/she be treated with the test or control treatment. METHODS: We propose the predictive individual effect which is a patient-centric and tangible measure of clinical benefit under a wide variety of scenarios. It can be obtained by standard predictive calculations under a rank preservation assumption that has been used previously in trials with treatment switching. RESULTS: We discuss four recent Oncology trials that cover situations with proportional as well as non-proportional hazards (delayed treatment effect or crossing of survival curves). It is shown that the predictive individual effect offers valuable insights beyond p-values, estimates of hazard ratios or differences in median survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard statistical measures, the predictive individual effect is a direct, easily interpretable measure of clinical benefit. It facilitates communication among clinicians, patients, and other parties and should therefore be considered in addition to standard statistical results.
BACKGROUND: The call for patient-focused drug development is loud and clear, as expressed in the twenty-first Century Cures Act and in recent guidelines and initiatives of regulatory agencies. Among the factors contributing to modernized drug development and improved health-care activities are easily interpretable measures of clinical benefit. In addition, special care is needed for cancer trials with time-to-event endpoints if the treatment effect is not constant over time. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the potential clinical survival benefit for a new patient, would he/she be treated with the test or control treatment. METHODS: We propose the predictive individual effect which is a patient-centric and tangible measure of clinical benefit under a wide variety of scenarios. It can be obtained by standard predictive calculations under a rank preservation assumption that has been used previously in trials with treatment switching. RESULTS: We discuss four recent Oncology trials that cover situations with proportional as well as non-proportional hazards (delayed treatment effect or crossing of survival curves). It is shown that the predictive individual effect offers valuable insights beyond p-values, estimates of hazard ratios or differences in median survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard statistical measures, the predictive individual effect is a direct, easily interpretable measure of clinical benefit. It facilitates communication among clinicians, patients, and other parties and should therefore be considered in addition to standard statistical results.
Authors: Ronald M Epstein; Peter Franks; Kevin Fiscella; Cleveland G Shields; Sean C Meldrum; Richard L Kravitz; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Michael A Postow; Jason Chesney; Anna C Pavlick; Caroline Robert; Kenneth Grossmann; David McDermott; Gerald P Linette; Nicolas Meyer; Jeffrey K Giguere; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Montaser Shaheen; Marc S Ernstoff; David Minor; April K Salama; Matthew Taylor; Patrick A Ott; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; Paul Gagnier; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antoni Ribas; Richard Kefford; Margaret A Marshall; Cornelis J A Punt; John B Haanen; Maribel Marmol; Claus Garbe; Helen Gogas; Jacob Schachter; Gerald Linette; Paul Lorigan; Kari L Kendra; Michele Maio; Uwe Trefzer; Michael Smylie; Grant A McArthur; Brigitte Dreno; Paul D Nathan; Jacek Mackiewicz; John M Kirkwood; Jesus Gomez-Navarro; Bo Huang; Dmitri Pavlov; Axel Hauschild Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James Larkin; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Jean Jacques Grob; C Lance Cowey; Christopher D Lao; Dirk Schadendorf; Reinhard Dummer; Michael Smylie; Piotr Rutkowski; Pier F Ferrucci; Andrew Hill; John Wagstaff; Matteo S Carlino; John B Haanen; Michele Maio; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Grant A McArthur; Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Margaret K Callahan; Michael A Postow; Kenneth Grossmann; Mario Sznol; Brigitte Dreno; Lars Bastholt; Arvin Yang; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; F Stephen Hodi; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Louis Fehrenbacher; Alexander Spira; Marcus Ballinger; Marcin Kowanetz; Johan Vansteenkiste; Julien Mazieres; Keunchil Park; David Smith; Angel Artal-Cortes; Conrad Lewanski; Fadi Braiteh; Daniel Waterkamp; Pei He; Wei Zou; Daniel S Chen; Jing Yi; Alan Sandler; Achim Rittmeyer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; David F McDermott; Saby George; Hans J Hammers; Sandhya Srinivas; Scott S Tykodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Giuseppe Procopio; Elizabeth R Plimack; Daniel Castellano; Toni K Choueiri; Howard Gurney; Frede Donskov; Petri Bono; John Wagstaff; Thomas C Gauler; Takeshi Ueda; Yoshihiko Tomita; Fabio A Schutz; Christian Kollmannsberger; James Larkin; Alain Ravaud; Jason S Simon; Li-An Xu; Ian M Waxman; Padmanee Sharma Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert L Ferris; George Blumenschein; Jerome Fayette; Joel Guigay; A Dimitrios Colevas; Lisa Licitra; Kevin Harrington; Stefan Kasper; Everett E Vokes; Caroline Even; Francis Worden; Nabil F Saba; Lara C Iglesias Docampo; Robert Haddad; Tamara Rordorf; Naomi Kiyota; Makoto Tahara; Manish Monga; Mark Lynch; William J Geese; Justin Kopit; James W Shaw; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245