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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milind A. Phadnis ◽  
Matthew S. Mayo
2021 ◽  
pp. 096228022098857
Author(s):  
Yongqiang Tang

Log-rank tests have been widely used to compare two survival curves in biomedical research. We describe a unified approach to power and sample size calculation for the unweighted and weighted log-rank tests in superiority, noninferiority and equivalence trials. It is suitable for both time-driven and event-driven trials. A numerical algorithm is suggested. It allows flexible specification of the patient accrual distribution, baseline hazards, and proportional or nonproportional hazards patterns, and enables efficient sample size calculation when there are a range of choices for the patient accrual pattern and trial duration. A confidence interval method is proposed for the trial duration of an event-driven trial. We point out potential issues with several popular sample size formulae. Under proportional hazards, the power of a survival trial is commonly believed to be determined by the number of observed events. The belief is roughly valid for noninferiority and equivalence trials with similar survival and censoring distributions between two groups, and for superiority trials with balanced group sizes. In unbalanced superiority trials, the power depends also on other factors such as data maturity. Surprisingly, the log-rank test usually yields slightly higher power than the Wald test from the Cox model under proportional hazards in simulations. We consider various nonproportional hazards patterns induced by delayed effects, cure fractions, and/or treatment switching. Explicit power formulae are derived for the combination test that takes the maximum of two or more weighted log-rank tests to handle uncertain nonproportional hazards patterns. Numerical examples are presented for illustration.


Author(s):  
Patrick Royston

The changes made to Royston (2018) and to power_ct are i) in section 2.4 ( Sample-size calculation for the combined test), to replace ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression using regress with grouped probit regression using glm; ii) in section 4 ( Examples), to revisit the worked examples of sample-size estimation in light of the revised estimation procedure; and iii) to update the help file entry for the option n( numlist). The updated software is version 1.2.0.


Author(s):  
Patrick Royston

Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed and analyzed assuming proportional hazards of the treatment effect. The sample-size calculation is based on a log-rank test or the equivalent Cox test. Nonproportional hazards are seen increasingly in trials and are recognized as a potential threat to the power of the log-rank test. To address the issue, Royston and Parmar (2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology 16: 16) devised a new “combined test” of the global null hypothesis of identical survival curves in each trial arm. The test, which combines the conventional Cox test with a new formulation, is based on the maximal standardized difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST) between the arms. The test statistic is based on evaluations of RMST over several preselected time points. The combined test involves the minimum p-value across the Cox and RMST-based tests, appropriately standardized to have the correct null distribution. In this article, I outline the combined test and introduce a command, stctest, that implements the combined test. I point the way to additional tools currently under development for power and sample-size calculation for the combined test.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document