Non-inferiority trials in breast and non-small cell lung cancer: Choice of non-inferiority margins and other statistical aspects

Abstract Background. Determining the non-inferiority margin is an essential step in the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials, and this margin should be preferably justified on clinical and statistical grounds. Methods. After a PubMed search for phase III trials in advanced breast cancer (BC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between January 1998 and December 2009 in 11 leading journals, non-inferiority trials were selected by manual search of the full papers. Results. Twenty-four of 195 trials had a primary non-inferiority hypothesis. When the two six-year study periods were compared, there were time trends within BC and NSCLC, with most non-inferiority trials in BC reported in the first six-year period, and vice-versa for NSCLC. The median sample size was larger for non-inferiority than superiority trials (p < 0.01). The choice of a non-inferiority margin was reportedly justified in only five cases. Non-inferiority trials were more likely than superiority trials to yield positive results (p < 0.001), as were trials in breast cancer (p = 0.02). Conclusions. Non-inferiority margins for cancer trials appear to be chosen mostly on historical grounds. Since nearly three-quarters of non-inferiority trials achieve their primary objective, the extent to which the choice of margins has influence on trial results remains to be determined.

[1]  J. Vandenbroucke,et al.  Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 2010, International journal of epidemiology.

[2]  M. Buyse,et al.  Overall survival and post-progression survival in advanced breast cancer: a review of recent randomized clinical trials. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  Anika Ashok,et al.  Guidance for Industry by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—Food and Drug Administration—Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)—February 1999 , 2009 .

[4]  Edward S. Kim,et al.  Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[5]  K. Carroll.  Active‐controlled, non‐inferiority trials in oncology: arbitrary limits, infeasible sample sizes and uninformative data analysis. Is there another way? , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  Xun Chen,et al.  Choosing the analysis population in non‐inferiority studies: per protocol or intent‐to‐treat , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  S. Pocock,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[8]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. , 2006, JAMA.

[9]  J. Dignam.  Early viewing of noninferiority trials in progress. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  S. Lange,et al.  Choice of delta: requirements and reality--results of a systematic review. , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[11]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  A Regulatory Perspective on Choice of Margin and Statistical Inference Issue in Non‐inferiority Trials , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[12]  E. Brittain,et al.  A comparison of intent‐to‐treat and per‐protocol results in antibiotic non‐inferiority trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Kevin Carroll,et al.  Design and analysis of non‐inferiority mortality trials in oncology , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Miklos Pless,et al.  Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  R. Ramlau,et al.  Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  A. Garrett.  Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Mark Rothmann,et al.  Design and analysis of non‐inferiority mortality trials in oncology , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  S S Ellenberg,et al.  Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  J M Lachin,et al.  Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. , 2000, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  E. Saad,et al.  Progression-free survival and time to progression as primary end points in advanced breast cancer: often used, sometimes loosely defined. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  Diem-Kieu H. Ngo.  FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) , 2008 .

[22]  Harald Enzmann,et al.  Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non‐inferiority margin , 2022 .

[23]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. , 2006, JAMA.