Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Assessing Delayed Treatment Benefits of Immunotherapy Using Long-Term Average Hazard: A Novel Test/Estimation Approach

Published 16 Mar 2024 in stat.ME | (2403.10742v1)

Abstract: Delayed treatment effects on time-to-event outcomes have often been observed in randomized controlled studies of cancer immunotherapies. In the case of delayed onset of treatment effect, the conventional test/estimation approach using the log-rank test for between-group comparison and Cox's hazard ratio to estimate the magnitude of treatment effect is not optimal, because the log-rank test is not the most powerful option, and the interpretation of the resulting hazard ratio is not obvious. Recently, alternative test/estimation approaches were proposed to address both the power issue and the interpretation problems of the conventional approach. One is a test/estimation approach based on long-term restricted mean survival time, and the other approach is based on average hazard with survival weight. This paper integrates these two ideas and proposes a novel test/estimation approach based on long-term average hazard (LT-AH) with survival weight. Numerical studies reveal specific scenarios where the proposed LT-AH method provides a higher power than the two alternative approaches. The proposed approach has test/estimation coherency and can provide robust estimates of the magnitude of treatment effect not dependent on study-specific censoring time distribution. Also, the proposed LT-AH approach can summarize the magnitude of the treatment effect in both absolute difference and relative terms using ``hazard'' (i.e., difference in LT-AH and ratio of LT-AH), meeting guideline recommendations and practical needs. This proposed approach can be a useful alternative to the traditional hazard-based test/estimation approach when delayed onset of survival benefit is expected.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (37)
  1. A’Hern, R. (2016). Restricted mean survival time: an obligatory end point for time-to-event analysis in cancer trials? J Clin Oncol 34, 3474–3476.
  2. Hazards of hazard ratios – deviations from model assumptions in immunotherapy. N Engl J Med 378, 1158–1159.
  3. Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review. arXiv:stat.ME page 2306.16858.
  4. Describing differences in survival curves. JAMA Oncol 2, 906–907.
  5. Chen, T. (2013). Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology. J Immunother Cancer 1, 18.
  6. CONSORT 2010 declaration: updated guideline for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Med Clin 137, 213–215.
  7. Rivaroxaban in rheumatic heart disease–associated atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 387, 978–988.
  8. Dafni, U. (2011). Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 4, 363–371.
  9. Counting Processes and Survival Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  10. Gill, R. (1983). Large sample behaviour of the product-limit estimator on the whole line. Ann Stat 11, 49–58.
  11. Rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. N Engl J Med 383, 2117–2126.
  12. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol 12, 9.
  13. Evaluation of adjuvant chemotherapy survival outcomes among patients with surgically resected pancreatic carcinoma with node-negative disease after neoadjuvant therapy. JAMA Surg 158, 55–62.
  14. How do the accrual pattern and follow-up duration affect the hazard ratio estimate when the proportional hazards assumption is violated? Oncologist 24, 867–871.
  15. On assessing survival benefit of immunotherapy using long-term restricted mean survival time. Stat Med 42, 1139–1155.
  16. Quantification of long-term survival benefit in a comparative oncology clinical study. JAMA Oncol 4, 881–882.
  17. Huang, B. (2018). Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies. Pharm Stat 17, 49–60.
  18. Estimation of the average hazard ratio. Biometrika 68, 105–112.
  19. On weighted log-rank combination tests and companion cox model estimators. Stat Biosci 12, 225–245.
  20. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 84, 1074–1078.
  21. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 378, 1277–1290.
  22. Window mean survival time. Stat Med 40, 5521–5533.
  23. The net chance of a longer survival as a patient-oriented measure of treatment benefit in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 2, 901–905.
  24. Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.
  25. Robust design and analysis of clinical trials with nonproportional hazards: a straw man guidance from a cross-pharma working group. Stat Biopharm Res 15, 280–294.
  26. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med 30, 2409–2421.
  27. Understanding and communicating measures of treatment effect on survival: can we do better? J Natl Cancer Inst 110, 232–240.
  28. Effect of routine invasive vs conservative strategy in older adults with frailty and non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. JAMA Intern Med 183, 407–415.
  29. On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika 64, 156–160.
  30. Efficiency of two sample tests via the restricted mean survival time for analyzing event time observations. Biometrics 74, 694–702.
  31. Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 32, 2380–2385.
  32. Ratio and difference of average hazard with survival weight: New measures to quantify survival benefit of new therapy. Stat Med 42, 936–952.
  33. Statistical test/estimation methods used in contemporary phase III cancer randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes. Oncologist 25, 91–93.
  34. Alternatives to hazard ratios for comparing the efficacy or safety of therapies in noninferiority studies. Ann Intern Med 163, 127–134.
  35. Designing therapeutic cancer vaccine trials with delayed treatment effect. Stat Med 36, 592–605.
  36. Utilizing the integrated difference of two survival functions to quantify the treatment contrast for designing, monitoring, and analyzing a comparative clinical study. Clin Trials 9, 570–577.
  37. Reinforcement learning strategies for clinical trials in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Biometrics 67, 1422–1433.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.