» Articles » PMID: 39348660

Evidenced-Based Prior for Estimating the Treatment Effect of Phase III Randomized Trials in Oncology

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Sep 30
PMID 39348660
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The primary results of phase III oncology trials may be challenging to interpret, given that results are generally based on value thresholds. The probability of whether a treatment is beneficial, although more intuitive, is not usually provided. Here, we developed and released a user-friendly tool that calculates the probability of treatment benefit using trial summary statistics.

Methods: We curated 415 phase III randomized trials enrolling 338,600 patients published between 2004 and 2020. A phase III prior probability distribution for the treatment effect was developed on the basis of a three-component zero-mean mixture distribution of the observed z-scores. Using this prior, we computed the probability of clinically meaningful benefit (hazard ratio [HR] <0.8). The distribution of signal-to-noise ratios and power of phase III oncology trials were compared with that of 23,551 randomized trials from the Cochrane Database.

Results: The signal-to-noise ratios of phase III oncology trials tended to be much larger than randomized trials from the Cochrane Database. Still, the median power of phase III oncology trials was only 49% (IQR, 14%-95%), and the power was <80% in 65% of trials. Using the phase III oncology-specific prior, only 53% of trials claiming superiority (114 of 216) had a ≥90% probability of clinically meaningful benefits. Conversely, the probability that the experimental arm was superior to the control arm (HR <1) exceeded 90% in 17% of trials interpreted as having no benefit (34 of 199).

Conclusion: By enabling computation of contextual probabilities for the treatment effect from summary statistics, our robust, highly practical tool, now posted on a user-friendly webpage, can aid the wider oncology community in the interpretation of phase III trials.

Citing Articles

Survival-Inferred Fragility of Statistical Significance in Phase III Oncology Trials.

Sherry A, Liu Y, Msaouel P, Lin T, Koong A, Lin C medRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39867397 PMC: 11759605. DOI: 10.1101/2025.01.11.25320398.


Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials.

Sherry A, Msaouel P, Kupferman G, Lin T, Abi Jaoude J, Kouzy R medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39108512 PMC: 11302607. DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.23.24310891.

References
1.
Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B . Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019; 567(7748):305-307. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9. View

2.
Msaouel P, Lee J, Thall P . Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(19). PMC: 10571666. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15194674. View

3.
Wijeysundera D, Austin P, Hux J, Beattie W, Laupacis A . Bayesian statistical inference enhances the interpretation of contemporary randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 62(1):13-21.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.006. View

4.
De La Fouchardiere C, Malka D, Cropet C, Chabaud S, Raimbourg J, Botsen D . Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Alone After 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase III PRODIGE 65-UCGI 36-GEMPAX UNICANCER Study. J Clin Oncol. 2024; 42(9):1055-1066. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00795. View

5.
Msaouel P, Lee J, Thall P . Making Patient-Specific Treatment Decisions Using Prognostic Variables and Utilities of Clinical Outcomes. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(11). PMC: 8198909. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13112741. View