Assessing Delayed Treatment Benefits of Immunotherapy Using Long-Term Average Hazard: A Novel Test/Estimation Approach
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.
- 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.
- Hazards of hazard ratios – deviations from model assumptions in immunotherapy. N Engl J Med 378, 1158–1159.
- Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review. arXiv:stat.ME page 2306.16858.
- Describing differences in survival curves. JAMA Oncol 2, 906–907.
- Chen, T. (2013). Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology. J Immunother Cancer 1, 18.
- CONSORT 2010 declaration: updated guideline for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Med Clin 137, 213–215.
- Rivaroxaban in rheumatic heart disease–associated atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 387, 978–988.
- Dafni, U. (2011). Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 4, 363–371.
- Counting Processes and Survival Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
- Gill, R. (1983). Large sample behaviour of the product-limit estimator on the whole line. Ann Stat 11, 49–58.
- Rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. N Engl J Med 383, 2117–2126.
- Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol 12, 9.
- 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.
- 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.
- On assessing survival benefit of immunotherapy using long-term restricted mean survival time. Stat Med 42, 1139–1155.
- Quantification of long-term survival benefit in a comparative oncology clinical study. JAMA Oncol 4, 881–882.
- Huang, B. (2018). Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies. Pharm Stat 17, 49–60.
- Estimation of the average hazard ratio. Biometrika 68, 105–112.
- On weighted log-rank combination tests and companion cox model estimators. Stat Biosci 12, 225–245.
- The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 84, 1074–1078.
- Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 378, 1277–1290.
- Window mean survival time. Stat Med 40, 5521–5533.
- The net chance of a longer survival as a patient-oriented measure of treatment benefit in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 2, 901–905.
- Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.
- 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.
- 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.
- Understanding and communicating measures of treatment effect on survival: can we do better? J Natl Cancer Inst 110, 232–240.
- 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.
- On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika 64, 156–160.
- Efficiency of two sample tests via the restricted mean survival time for analyzing event time observations. Biometrics 74, 694–702.
- Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 32, 2380–2385.
- Ratio and difference of average hazard with survival weight: New measures to quantify survival benefit of new therapy. Stat Med 42, 936–952.
- Statistical test/estimation methods used in contemporary phase III cancer randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes. Oncologist 25, 91–93.
- Alternatives to hazard ratios for comparing the efficacy or safety of therapies in noninferiority studies. Ann Intern Med 163, 127–134.
- Designing therapeutic cancer vaccine trials with delayed treatment effect. Stat Med 36, 592–605.
- 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.
- Reinforcement learning strategies for clinical trials in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Biometrics 67, 1422–1433.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.