Assessment of Hazard Ratios in Oncology Clinical Trials Terminated Early for Superiority: A Systematic Review

2Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Importance: Group sequential designs allow potential early trial termination at the interim analysis, before study completion. Traditional maximum likelihood estimate is commonly used to quantify the treatment effect in group sequential design trials; however, in published clinical trials, a bias-adjusted estimator has rarely been reported. Objective: To emphasize the need for considering overestimation of treatment effect by applying 2 bias-adjusted estimators to previously published, early-terminated oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: Trials published from 2013 to 2017 were identified by searching MEDLINE and Embase on February 23, 2018. This review was restricted to oncology clinical trials using group sequential designs with a single preplanned interim analysis as well as 2-arm randomized clinical trials that were subsequently stopped for efficacy reasons. Each article was independently reviewed by 3 biostatisticians during text screening, and differences in opinion were resolved by discussion. This report presents the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of an experimental arm to a reference arm and 2 bias-adjusted HRs calculated by using the conditional mean-adjusted estimator (CMAE) and weighted CMAE (WCMAE). Findings: In total, 198 abstracts were screened for eligibility, of which, 19 eligible clinical trials were identified as applicable to the bias-adjusted estimators. Unadjusted HRs ranged from 0.203 (95% CI, 0.150-0.276) to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60-0.84), number of events at the interim analysis from 58 to 540, and information time from 48% to 82%. In each study, the HRs adjusted by CMAE and WCMAE were higher than the unadjusted HR. Bias-adjusted estimates in large trials (243 and 414 events at the interim analysis) were similar to the unadjusted HR. However, in small trials (eg, with 58 events at the interim analysis), bias-adjusted estimates were highly disparate from the unadjusted HR. In trials with large treatment effects (eg, HRs of 0.20 and 0.22), the difference between unadjusted and bias-adjusted HRs was small even though the number of events at the interim analysis was small; larger differences were observed when the unadjusted HR was greater than 0.5. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of oncology clinical trials that were stopped for efficacy at the interim analysis, relatively large differences were noted between the unadjusted and adjusted HRs when the number of events at the interim analysis was small or when the unadjusted HR was close to the boundaries. These findings suggest presenting the 2 bias-adjusted HRs along with the unadjusted HR in the data monitoring committee meeting..

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

22284Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer

2795Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib

2211Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Challenges of estimating treatment effects after a positive interim analysis

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shimura, M., Nomura, S., Wakabayashi, M., Maruo, K., & Gosho, M. (2020). Assessment of Hazard Ratios in Oncology Clinical Trials Terminated Early for Superiority: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 3(6), E208633. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8633

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

45%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

36%

Researcher 2

18%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 10

59%

Mathematics 4

24%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 2

12%

Sports and Recreations 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0