Stochastic curtailment tests for phase II trial with time-to-event outcome using the concept of relative time in the case of non-proportional hazards

References

• Collett, D. 2015. Modelling survival data in medical research. CRC press. doi:10.1201/b18041.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, B. R., and R. J. Hardy. 1994. Data monitoring in clinical trials: the case for stochastic curtailment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 47 (9):1033–1042. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90119-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMets, D. L., and J. H. Ware. 1982. Asymmetric group sequential boundaries for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika 69 (3):661. doi:10.1093/biomet/69.3.661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dignam, J. J., J. Bryant, H. S. Wieand, B. Fisher, and N. Wolmark. 1998. Early stopping of a clinical trial when there is evidence of no treatment benefit: Protocol B-14 of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project. Controlled Clinical Trials 19 (6):575–588. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(98)00041-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dmitrienko, A., G. Molenberghs, C. Chuang-Stein, and W. Offen. 2017. Analysis of clinical trials using SAS: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Dmitrienko, A., and M.-D.-D. Wang. 2006. Bayesian predictive approach to interim monitoring in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 25 (13):2178–2195. doi:10.1002/sim.2204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers, P. M., D. Ashby, and M. K. B. Parmar. 2005. Monitoring: Bayesian data monitoring in clinical trials. Tutorials in Biostatistics, Statistical Methods in Clinical Studies 1:335–352. doi:10.1002/0470023678.CH3B.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandes, R. M., J. H. van der Lee, and M. Offringa. 2009. A systematic review of the reporting of data monitoring committees’ roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric clinical trials. BMC Pediatrics 9 (1):1–16. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-9-77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman, L. S. 1982. Tables of the number of patients required in clinical trials using the logrank test. Statistics in Medicine 1 (2):121–129. doi:10.1002/sim.4780010204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halperin, M., K. K. Gordon Lan, J. H. Ware, N. J. Johnson, and D. L. DeMets. 1982. An aid to data monitoring in long-term clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 3 (4):311–323. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(82)90022-8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He, P., T. L. Lai, and Z. Su. 2015. Design of clinical trials with failure-time endpoints and interim analyses: an update after fifteen years. Contemporary Clinical Trials 45:103–112. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jachno, K., S. Heritier, and R. Wolfe. 2019. Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice. BMC Medical Research Methodology 19 (1):1–9. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0749-1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jennison, C., and B. W. Turnbull. 1990. Statistical approaches to interim monitoring of medical trials: A review and commentary. Statistical Science. doi:10.1214/ss/1177012099.
   Google Scholar
• Jennison, C., and B. W. Turnbull. 1999. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. In Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9780367805326
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez, J. L., V. Stalbovskaya, and B. Jones. 2019. Properties of the weighted log‐rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects. Pharmaceutical Statistics 18 (3):287–303. doi:10.1002/pst.1923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehnapfel, A., F. Schwarzenberger, and M. Scholz. 2017. On the conditional power in survival time analysis considering cure fractions. The International Journal of Biostatistics 13 (1). doi:10.1515/ijb-2015-0073.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kundu, M. G., S. Samanta, and S. Mondal. 2021. Conditional power, predictive power and probability of success in clinical trials with continuous, binary and time-to-event endpoints.
   Google Scholar
• Kunzmann, K., M. J. Grayling, K. M. Lee, D. S. Robertson, K. Rufibach, and J. M. S. Wason. 2022. Conditional power and friends: the why and how of (un) planned, unblinded sample size recalculations in confirmatory trials. Statistics in Medicine 41 (5):877–890. doi:10.1002/sim.9288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachin, J. M. 2005. A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power. Statistics in Medicine 24 (18):2747–2764. doi:10.1002/sim.2151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachin, J. M., and M. A. Foulkes. 1986. Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for nonuniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, noncompliance, and stratification. Biometrics 42 (3):507. doi:10.2307/2531201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, E. 1988. Sample sizes based on the log-rank statistic in complex clinical trials. Biometrics 44 (1):229–241. doi:10.2307/2531910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lan, K. K. G., P. Hu, and M. A. Proschan. 2009. A conditional power approach to the evaluation of predictive power. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 1 (2):131–136. doi:10.1198/sbr.2009.0035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lan, K. K. G., R. Simon, and M. Halperin. 1982. Stochastically curtailed tests in long-term clinical-trials. Communications in Statistics: Part C: Sequential Analysis 1 (3):207–219. doi:10.1080/07474948208836014.
   Google Scholar
• Lan, K. K. G., R. Simon, and M. Halperin. 2007. Stochastically curtailed tests in long–term clinical trials. Communications in Statistics: Part C: Sequential Analysis 1 (3):207–219. doi:10.1080/07474948208836014.
   Google Scholar
• Magirr, D., T. Jaki, F. Koenig, M. Posch, and R. K. Hills. 2016. Sample size reassessment and hypothesis testing in adaptive survival trials. PloS One 11 (2):e0146465. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCSS, L. 2015. Pass 14 power analysis and sample size software. Kaysville, Utah, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Phadnis, M. A. 2019. Sample size calculation for small sample single-arm trials for time-to-event data: Logrank test with normal approximation or test statistic based on exact chi-square distribution?. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 15:100360. doi:10.1016/J.CONCTC.2019.100360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phadnis, M. A., and M. S. Mayo. 2020. Group sequential design for time-to-event data using the concept of proportional time. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 29 (7):1867–1890. doi:10.1177/0962280219876313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phadnis, M. A., and M. S. Mayo. 2021. Sample size calculation for two‐arm trials with time‐to‐event endpoint for nonproportional hazards using the concept of Relative Time when inference is built on comparing Weibull distributions. Biometrical Journal 63 (7):1406–1433. doi:10.1002/bimj.202000043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phadnis, M. A., P. Sharma, N. Thewarapperuma, and P. Chalise. 2020. Assessing accuracy of Weibull shape parameter estimate from historical studies for subsequent sample size calculation in clinical trials with time-to-event outcome. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 17:100548. doi:10.1016/J.CONCTC.2020.100548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phadnis, M. A., J. B. Wetmore, and M. S. Mayo. 2017. A clinical trial design using the concept of proportional time using the generalized gamma ratio distribution. Statistics in Medicine. 36 (26):4121–4140. doi:10.1002/sim.7421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocock, S. J. 1977. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 64 (2):191–199. doi:10.1093/biomet/64.2.191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proschan, M. A., K. K. G. Lan, and J. T. Wittes. 2006. Statistical monitoring of clinical trials: a unified approach. New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Royston, P., F. M. S. Barthel, M. K. B. Parmar, B. Choodari-Oskooei, and V. Isham. 2011. Designs for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes based on stopping guidelines for lack of benefit. Trials 12 (1):1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royston, P., and M. K. B. Parmar. 2014. An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect. Trials 15 (1):1–10. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-314.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royston, P., and M. K. B. Parmar. 2016. Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated. BMC Medical Research Methodology 16 (1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0110-x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royston, P., and M. K. B. K. Parmar. 2013. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13 (1):1–15. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rubinstein, L. 2014. Phase II design: history and evolution. Chinese Clinical Oncology 3 (4):48. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2014.02.02.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spiegelhalter, D. J., K. R. Abrams, and J. P. Myles. 2004. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Hoboken, NJ. doi:10.1002/0470092602.
   Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter, D. J., L. S. Freedman, and P. R. Blackburn. 1986. Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power? Controlled Clinical Trials 7 (1):8–17. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90003-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spiegelhalter, D. J., L. S. Freedman, and M. K. B. Parmar. 1994. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 157 (3):357. doi:10.2307/2983527.
   Google Scholar
• Tharmanathan, P., M. Calvert, J. Hampton, and N. Freemantle. 2008. The use of interim data and data monitoring committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: Frequency, implications and potential sources of bias. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (1):1–8. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waleed, M., J. He, and M. A. Phadnis. 2021. Some design considerations incorporating early futility for single‐arm clinical trials with time‐to‐event primary endpoints using Weibull distribution. Pharmaceutical Statistics 20 (3):610–644. doi:10.1002/pst.2097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan, F. 2017. Simulating survival data with predefined censoring rates for proportional hazards models. Statistics in Medicine 36 (5):838–854. doi:10.1002/SIM.7178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, J. 1999. A unified theory for sequential clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 18 (17‐18):2271–2286. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2271:AID-SIM254>3.0.CO;2-Z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J. 2015. Power and sample size for randomized phase III survival trials under the Weibull model. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 25 (1):16. doi:10.1080/10543406.2014.919940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., and X. Xiong. 2015. Group sequential design for randomized phase III trials under the Weibull model. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics 25 (6):1190–1205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2014.971165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar