» Articles » PMID: 26576494

Gaining Power and Precision by Using Model-based Weights in the Analysis of Late Stage Cancer Trials with Substantial Treatment Switching

Overview
Journal Stat Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2015 Nov 19
PMID 26576494
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In randomised controlled trials of treatments for late-stage cancer, it is common for control arm patients to receive the experimental treatment around the point of disease progression. This treatment switching can dilute the estimated treatment effect on overall survival and impact the assessment of a treatment's benefit on health economic evaluations. The rank-preserving structural failure time model of Robins and Tsiatis (Comm. Stat., 20:2609-2631) offers a potential solution to this problem and is typically implemented using the logrank test. However, in the presence of substantial switching, this test can have low power because the hazard ratio is not constant over time. Schoenfeld (Biometrika, 68:316-319) showed that when the hazard ratio is not constant, weighted versions of the logrank test become optimal. We present a weighted logrank test statistic for the late stage cancer trial context given the treatment switching pattern and working assumptions about the underlying hazard function in the population. Simulations suggest that the weighted approach can lead to large efficiency gains in either an intention-to-treat or a causal rank-preserving structural failure time model analysis compared with the unweighted approach. Furthermore, violation of the working assumptions used in the derivation of the weights only affects the efficiency of the estimates and does not induce bias or inflate the type I error rate. The weighted logrank test statistic should therefore be considered for use as part of a careful secondary, exploratory analysis of trial data affected by substantial treatment switching.

Citing Articles

Addressing treatment switching in the ALTA-1L trial with g-methods: exploring the impact of model specification.

Al Tawil A, McGrath S, Ristl R, Mansmann U BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):314.

PMID: 39707229 PMC: 11660711. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02437-6.


A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching.

Jimenez J, Niewczas J, Bore A, Burman C PLoS One. 2021; 16(11):e0259178.

PMID: 34780488 PMC: 8592474. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259178.


Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests.

Lin R, Leon L Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018; 8:147-155.

PMID: 29696204 PMC: 5898500. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.004.


Gaining power and precision by using model-based weights in the analysis of late stage cancer trials with substantial treatment switching.

Bowden J, Seaman S, Huang X, White I Stat Med. 2015; 35(9):1423-40.

PMID: 26576494 PMC: 4871231. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6801.

References
1.
Gore S, Bird A . Concorde trial of immediate versus deferred zidovudine. Lancet. 1994; 343(8909):1357; author reply 1358. View

2.
White I, Babiker A, Walker S, Darbyshire J . Randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes: examples from the Concorde trial. Stat Med. 1999; 18(19):2617-34. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991015)18:19<2617::aid-sim187>3.0.co;2-e. View

3.
Bowden J, Seaman S, Huang X, White I . Gaining power and precision by using model-based weights in the analysis of late stage cancer trials with substantial treatment switching. Stat Med. 2015; 35(9):1423-40. PMC: 4871231. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6801. View

4.
Demetri G, van Oosterom A, Garrett C, Blackstein M, Shah M, Verweij J . Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure of imatinib: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006; 368(9544):1329-38. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69446-4. View

5.
. Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Lancet. 1994; 343(8902):871-81. View