Delayed treatment effects, treatment switching and heterogeneous patient populations: How to design and analyze RCTs in oncology

In the analysis of survival times, the logrank test and the Cox model have been established as key tools, which do not require specific distributional assumptions. Under the assumption of proportional hazards, they are efficient and their results can be interpreted unambiguously. However, delayed treatment effects, disease progression, treatment switchers or the presence of subgroups with differential treatment effects may challenge the assumption of proportional hazards. In practice, weighted logrank tests emphasizing either early, intermediate or late event times via an appropriate weighting function may be used to accommodate for an expected pattern of non-proportionality. We model these sources of non-proportional hazards via a mixture of survival functions with piecewise constant hazard. The model is then applied to study the power of unweighted and weighted log-rank tests, as well as maximum tests allowing different time dependent weights. Simulation results suggest a robust performance of maximum tests across different scenarios, with little loss in power compared to the most powerful among the considered weighting schemes and huge power gain compared to unfavorable weights. The actual sources of non-proportional hazards are not obvious from resulting populationwise survival functions, highlighting the importance of detailed simulations in the planning phase of a trial when assuming non-proportional hazards.We provide the required tools in a software package, allowing to model data generating processes under complex non-proportional hazard scenarios, to simulate data from these models and to perform the weighted logrank tests.

[1]  A. Rong,et al.  Weighted log‐rank test for time‐to‐event data in immunotherapy trials with random delayed treatment effect and cure rate , 2018, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[2]  D. Schoenfeld The asymptotic properties of nonparametric tests for comparing survival distributions , 1981 .

[3]  P C Lambert,et al.  Adjusting for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials – A simulation study and a simplified two-stage method , 2017, Statistical methods in medical research.

[4]  Tai-Tsang Chen Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology , 2013, Journal of Immunotherapy for Cancer.

[5]  Huilin Chen,et al.  Statistical Inference Methods for Two Crossing Survival Curves: A Comparison of Methods , 2015, PloS one.

[6]  U Siebert,et al.  Causal inference for long-term survival in randomised trials with treatment switching: Should re-censoring be applied when estimating counterfactual survival times? , 2018, Statistical methods in medical research.

[7]  B. Logan,et al.  Group sequential tests for long-term survival comparisons , 2015, Lifetime data analysis.

[8]  T. Karrison Versatile Tests for Comparing Survival Curves Based on Weighted Log-rank Statistics , 2016 .

[9]  John D. Kalbfleisch,et al.  Estimation of the average hazard ratio , 1981 .

[10]  Werner Brannath,et al.  Sequential tests for non-proportional hazards data , 2017, Lifetime data analysis.

[11]  S. Novello,et al.  Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non–Small‐Cell Lung Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Tai-Tsang Chen,et al.  Predicting analysis times in randomized clinical trials with cancer immunotherapy , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[13]  B. Jones,et al.  Properties of the weighted log‐rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects , 2018, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[14]  Seung-Hwan Lee,et al.  On the versatility of the combination of the weighted log-rank statistics , 2007, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[15]  J. De Neve,et al.  On the interpretation of the hazard ratio in Cox regression , 2019, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[16]  R. Tarone,et al.  On the distribution of the maximum of the longrank statistic and the modified Wilcoxon statistic , 1981 .

[17]  M. Schemper,et al.  The estimation of average hazard ratios by weighted Cox regression , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Takahiro Hasegawa,et al.  Sample size determination for the weighted log‐rank test with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights in cancer vaccine studies , 2014, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[19]  Song Yang,et al.  Combining asymptotically normal tests : case studies in comparison of two groups , 2005 .

[20]  B. Blumenstein,et al.  Lessons from randomized phase III studies with active cancer immunotherapies--outcomes from the 2006 meeting of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC). , 2007, Vaccine.

[21]  W. Brannath,et al.  The Average Hazard Ratio – A Good Effect Measure for Time-to-event Endpoints when the Proportional Hazard Assumption is Violated? , 2018, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[22]  Xun Chen,et al.  Design and monitoring of survival trials in complex scenarios , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Daniel J. Wilson,et al.  The harmonic mean p-value for combining dependent tests , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Takahiro Hasegawa,et al.  Group sequential monitoring based on the weighted log‐rank test statistic with the Fleming–Harrington class of weights in cancer vaccine studies , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[25]  V. Anagnostou,et al.  Immuno-oncology Trial Endpoints: Capturing Clinically Meaningful Activity , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[26]  R. Peto,et al.  Rank tests of maximal power against Lehmann-type alternatives , 1972 .

[27]  B. Freidlin,et al.  Interim Futility Monitoring Assessing Immune Therapies With a Potentially Delayed Treatment Effect. , 2018, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[29]  Ganesh B. Malla,et al.  A new piecewise exponential estimator of a survival function , 2010 .