» Articles » PMID: 28184431

Statistical Controversies in Clinical Research: Futility Analyses in Oncology-lessons on Potential Pitfalls from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Journal Ann Oncol
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Oncology
Date 2017 Feb 11
PMID 28184431
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Pre-planned futility analyses are commonly used in oncology studies. The LUME-Lung 2 study (NCT00806819; 1199.14) was stopped early based on a pre-planned, non-binding futility analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), although subsequent analysis showed that the primary endpoint of improvement in centrally reviewed PFS was met. Retrospective analyses were conducted to understand the discrepancy between interim futility and final analyses.

Materials And Methods: LUME-Lung 2 investigated nintedanib in combination with pemetrexed versus placebo‒pemetrexed for the treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer who had relapsed or failed one prior line of chemotherapy. Pre-planned futility analysis was carried out by the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) after 50% of the events for the primary PFS analysis (713 events) had occurred; the threshold for futility was a conditional power of < 20%. Conditional/predictive powers and hazard ratios were calculated retrospectively after varying percentages of events had occurred for both investigator- and centrally reviewed PFS.

Results: At the time of the pre-planned futility analysis, the conditional power was 10.3% and the predictive power was 18.5%; no safety issues were identified. Retrospective analysis showed that the conditional and predictive powers fluctuated considerably over time for both investigator- and centrally reviewed PFS and that the power only dropped by a notable amount, and below the futility threshold, at the time of the futility analysis.

Conclusions: Retrospective investigations suggest that, had the DMC analysis been carried out at another time point, or had centrally reviewed PFS data been used, the futility outcome may have been different and the trial may have been continued. The design of futility analyses requires careful consideration and confirming negative futility outcomes by second analysis may be appropriate.

Trial Number: NCT00806819.

Citing Articles

Group sequential designs in pragmatic trials: feasibility and assessment of utility using data from a number of recent surgical RCTs.

Parsons N, Stallard N, Parsons H, Haque A, Underwood M, Mason J BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):256.

PMID: 36183085 PMC: 9526271. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01734-2.


The Futility of Futility Analyses in Adjuvant Trials in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

Lohmann A, Ennis M, Parulekar W, Chen B, Tomlinson G, Goodwin P J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022; 114(7):924-929.

PMID: 35377437 PMC: 9275774. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac067.


Estimation of conditional power for cluster-randomized trials with interval-censored endpoints.

Cook K, Wang R Biometrics. 2020; 77(3):970-983.

PMID: 32839967 PMC: 8979414. DOI: 10.1111/biom.13360.


Effect of Caspofungin vs Fluconazole Prophylaxis on Invasive Fungal Disease Among Children and Young Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Fisher B, Zaoutis T, Dvorak C, Nieder M, Zerr D, Wingard J JAMA. 2019; 322(17):1673-1681.

PMID: 31688884 PMC: 6865545. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.15702.


EOLIA trial: the future of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome therapy?.

Sameed M, Meng Z, Marciniak E Breathe (Sheff). 2019; 15(3):244-246.

PMID: 31508163 PMC: 6717615. DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0363-2018.