scholarly journals Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Hussain ◽  
Catherine Tangen ◽  
Celestia Higano ◽  
Nicholas Vogelzang ◽  
Ian Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) has been widely tested in prostate cancer. However, phase III trials testing continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) versus IAD have reached inconclusive and seemingly contradictory results. Different design and conduct issues must be critically evaluated to better interpret the results. Patients and Methods Seven published phase III trials were examined for prespecified design and outcomes. Treatment specifications; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were considered in terms of the results and conclusions reported. Results Five trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis. Only three trials had a uniform population and overall survival (OS) end point. All trials observed better outcomes in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) than assumed at time of study design, translating into prespecified NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms. Lower-than-expected event rates also reduced statistical power for the trials. Other factors, including length of follow-up, cause of death, QOL, and primary end point, and their impact on trial interpretation are discussed. Conclusion No trial to date has demonstrated survival superiority of IAD compared with CAD. Trials concluding IAD is noninferior to CAD were based on wide NIMs that included clinically important survival differences, not likely to be considered comparable by physicians or patients. Interim analyses relying on short follow-up and including a majority of non–prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted cautiously. Adequate follow-up is required to ensure capture of prostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.

scholarly journals A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Cancer Chemoprevention ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Oral bisphosphonates fail to prevent bone loss from androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14643-14643 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Y. Lam ◽  
M. Scholz ◽  
B. Guess ◽  
T. Trilling
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oral Bisphosphonates ◽  
Prevent Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Mineral Densitometry

14643 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a widely administered treatment for prostate cancer. However, ADT is associated with accelerated bone loss, osteoporosis, and fractures (Shahinian, NEJM 2005; 352:154). According to Smith et al, annual bone loss on ADT approaches 9% (Smith, NEJM 2001;345:948), using QCT densitometry, a highly sensitive test for the detection of osteoporosis in men. Intravenous bisphosphonates (pamidronate, zolendronate) have been shown to prevent ADT-related bone loss in randomized phase III trials. We performed a retrospective analysis to determine if oral bisphosphonates effectively prevent bone loss in men receiving ADT. Methods: Twenty two men, ages 60–80, were placed on alendronate or risendronate at the initiation of ADT. Baseline and follow-up bone mineral densitometry (BMD) studies were performed with QCT densitometry. Repeat BMD was performed 12- 27 months (mean = 17mo) after the baseline BMD. Percentage change in bone density was annualized. Within each treatment group, the hypothesis of no mean change from baseline was analyzed using a paired t test. Results: Mean baseline bone density was 122.6mg/cc. Mean follow-up bone density was 112.7mg/cc. For the whole group, the annualized mean change in BMD was negative 7.77%/yr (p = 0.0003). Of note, 9/22 men maintained or gained bone density (-1.26% to +5.95%). 13/22 men lost at least 6.03% (-6.03% to -23.2%). There was no unexpected toxicity or fractures. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, prophylactic oral bisphosphonates do not protect against accelerated ADT-induced bone loss in men with prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Evaluation and follow-up of patients with n1-3 m0 or nxm1 prostate cancer in phase iii trials

Urology ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reginald Hall ◽  
Per Olov Hedlund ◽  
Rolf Ackermann ◽  
Nicholas Bruchovsky ◽  
Otilia Dalesio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

scholarly journals Efficacy of next treatment received after nivolumab progression in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 00120-2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrien Costantini ◽  
Jennifer Corny ◽  
Vincent Fallet ◽  
Sophie Renet ◽  
Sylvie Friard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Nivolumab for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluated in phase III trials showed 50% progression at first evaluation, but better overall survival (OS), suggesting regained efficacy of treatments given thereafter. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nivolumab and of next treatment received after nivolumab progression in patients with advanced NSCLC.Our multicentre retrospective study included all patients receiving nivolumab between January and December 2015. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) of treatment given after nivolumab.The 303 patients had the following characteristics: median age 63 years, 69% males, 92% smokers, 67% performance status 0–1 and 61% adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab was given as second-line treatment in 40% of patients. With 13.7 months of median follow-up, nivolumab PFS and OS were 2.6 and 11.3 months, respectively. At the cut-off analysis 18% were controlled under nivolumab, 14% were deceased and 5% were lost to follow-up under nivolumab. Among the 191 (63%) patients eligible for post-nivolumab (PN) treatment, 115 (38%) received further treatment and were characterised by better performance status (p=0.028) and by receiving more injections of nivolumab (p=0.001). Global PN-OS and PN-PFS were 5.2 and 2.8 months, respectively. Drugs most frequently used after nivolumab were gemcitabine (23%), docetaxel (22%) and erlotinib (16%), with median PFS of 2.8, 2.7 and 2.0 months, respectively.Nivolumab produced similar efficacy as in phase III trials, although patients received nivolumab later and had worse performance status. 38% received treatment after nivolumab progression with efficacy comparable to historical second-line trials.

Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) as surrogate end-point for predicting five-year overall survival (OS) benefit in adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy for breast cancer (BC): Analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 584-584
Author(s):  
D. Giannarelli ◽  
E. Bria ◽  
F. Cuppone ◽  
M. Ciccarese ◽  
C. Nisticò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
End Point ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

584 Background: The issue regarding the eventual correlation between DFS at earlier follow-up (i.e. 3-yrs) with 5-yrs OS has not actually been explored in trials addressing the role of taxanes in BC. All RCTs in which patients were randomized to receive a standard or a taxane-based regimen for early BC were analyzed to evaluate this topic. Methods: All phase III trials with at least 60 month follow-up were considered eligible. The correlation has been explored according to a linear regression model considering both each single outcome pair (DFS/OS) for all arms (extracted by curves), their differences, and each outcome Hazard Ratio (HR) or calculated Relative Risk (RRs), following 2 steps: 1) correlation between 5-yrs DFS and OS (to confirm the evidence); 2) correlation between 3-yrs DFS and 5-yrs OS (predictive role). The correlation was estimated according to Pearson (r) and R2 coefficients (parametric) and Spearman (Rho) coefficient (non- parametric). A model to calculate the target sample size to determine 5-yrs OS benefit of 3%, 5% and 7%, respectively, was calculated as well. Results: Ten RCTs (17,067 patients) with available data for outcomes were gathered. For 5-yrs DFS/OS, a linear correlation was found between rates (r=0.74, R2=0.55; p<0.0001; Rho=0.83; p<0.0001), and HRs (r=0.90, R2=0.81; p<0.0001; Rho=0.91; p<0.0001). Three-yrs DFS correlates with 5-yrs OS, with both rates (r=0.81, R2=0.66; p<0.0001; Rho=0.92; p<0.0001), and RRs (r=0.84, R2=0.71; p=0.002; Rho=0.85; p=0.002). Three-yrs DFS and 5-yrs OS absolute differences strongly correlate (r=0.86, R2=0.74; p=0.001; Rho=0.84; p=0.002). The sample size model (on the basis of the r-coefficient=0.81), calculates 2,733, 863, and 389 pts to improve 3-yrs DFS of 4%, 7% and 10%, which means to improve 5-yrs OS of 3.2%, 5.7% and 8.1%, respectively. Conclusions: By these data, 3-yrs DFS is a reliable surrogate end-point for OS when testing new drugs in early BC, and is able to predict a late survival benefit. Thanks to the smaller patient sample size, RCTs with this design will provide early results in a shorter time period, allowing a faster data transfer to clinical practice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Does progression-free-survival (PFS) correlate with overall- and cancer-specific survival (OS/CSS) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring the addition of hormonal therapy (HT) to radiotherapy (RT) for early prostate cancer (EPC)? Analysis of six RCTs

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5056-5056
Author(s):  
E. M. Ruggeri ◽  
E. Bria ◽  
P. Carlini ◽  
F. Cuppone ◽  
M. Milella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
End Point ◽  
Target Sample Size ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Beta Coefficient

5056 Background: Although PFS is considered the standard primary end-point in EPC, the correlation with OS has never been explored in RCTs randomizing patients (pts) to HT plus radiotherapy (RT) versus RT. Given the relatively long prognosis in this disease setting, the correlation between PFS and CSS should be investigated as well. Methods: All phase III trials reporting all outcome’ data were considered eligible. The correlation has been explored according to a linear regression model considering both each single outcome pair (PFS, OS and CSS rates) for all arms, and each reported Hazard Ratio (HRs). The correlation was estimated according to both the Pearson- (r) and R2-coefficient (parametric) and the Spearman coefficient (Rho, non-parametric). A sensitivity analysis in 2 subgroups (long- and short-term HT) to test for effect robustness has been accomplished as well. A model to determine the target sample size to determine CSS benefit of 3%, 4%, 6% and 7% months, respectively, was calculated as well. Results: Six RCTs (4,212 pts) were collected (follow-up range: 4.5–7.6 years). In the overall population, when considering the crude rates, a linear stronger correlation was found between PFS and CSS (r=0.71, R2=0.51, p=0.003; Rho=0.75, p=0.005), rather than with OS (r=0.55, R2=0.30, p=0.06; Rho=0.78, p=0.11). Again, when considering HRs, a linear stronger correlation was found between PFS and CSS (r=0.87, R2=0.76, p=0.02; Rho=0.94, p=0.005), rather than with OS (r=0.75, R2=0.56, p=0.08; Rho=0.77, p=0.07). Similar correlations were found whatever subgroups was explored. The sample size model (on the basis of the beta-coefficient=0.71), calculate 4,575, 2,006, 1,115 and 700 pts to improve PFS of 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% months, which means to improve CSS of 2.8%, 4.3%, 5.7% and 7.1%, respectively. Conclusions: The correlation between PFS and CSS in RCTs exploring the benefit of adding HT to RT for EPC is significant, and suggests its further investigation as surrogate end-point. The natural history of the disease clearly explains the stronger correlation of PFS with CSS rather than with OS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Initial report of RTOG 9601, a phase III trial in prostate cancer: Effect of anti-androgen therapy (AAT) with bicalutamide during and after radiation therapy (RT) on freedom from progression and incidence of metastatic disease in patients following radical prostatectomy (RP) with pT2-3,N0 disease and elevated PSA levels.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. U. Shipley ◽  
D. Hunt ◽  
H. R. Lukka ◽  
P. Major ◽  
N. M. Heney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Liver Toxicity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Initial Report ◽  
End Point ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Double Blinded

1 Background: To test if long term AAT when combined with RT in these patients (pts) with prostate cancer (PC) will improve cancer control outcomes as well as overall survival (OS). Methods: Post-RP pts with pT3,N0 or with pT2,N0 (and positive margins) who have an elevated PSA were entered on a phase III, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of RT alone (64.8 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions) vs RT + AAT (24 months of bicalutamide, 150mg daily) during and after RT. The primary end point is OS. Results: From 3/98 to 3/03, 771 eligible pts (median age 65) were randomized to RT + AAT (387) or RT alone (383). Pretreatment characteristics were balanced. 672 (87%) had a PSA nadir after RP of < 0.5 ng/mL. 655 (85%) had an entry PSA value of <1.6, 115 (15%) had an entry PSA of 1.6-3.9. Median follow-up was 7.1 years. Actuarial OS at 7 years was 91% for RT + AAT and 86% for RT alone. Too few primary end-point events have occurred to allow a statistical comparison between groups. Freedom from PSA progression (FFP) at 7 years was 57% for RT + AAT and 40% for RT alone (P < 0.0001); for 226 pts with GS < 7 were 63% and 50% (P<0.02), for 411 GS 7 these were 55% and 39% (P<0.0006), and for 134 GS 8-10 were 56% and 26% (P < 0.0008). The 7-yr cumulative incidence of metastatic PC was less in the RT and AAT arm, 7% vs 13% in the RT arm (p<0.041). Late grade 3-4 toxicities were similar in both arms. By category the combined grade 3-4 toxicities for RT + AAT and RT alone were: bladder 6% vs 5% bowel 2% vs 1%, cardiac 3% vs 2%. Gynecomastia (mostly grades 1-2) differed significantly, 89% vs15%. In the RT + AAT arm grade 3 was the highest liver toxicity, which occurred in 3 pts. Conclusions: The addition of 24 months of bicalutamide 150 mg daily during and after RT significantly improved FFP and reduced the incidence of metastatic PC without adding significantly to RT toxicity. The significance of benefit in OS, as well analysis of risk-stratified subsets, wait longer follow-up. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Causes of death in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy: Analysis from two phase III trials.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34
Author(s):  
Abdenour Nabid ◽  
Nathalie Carrier ◽  
Eric Vigneault ◽  
André-Guy Martin ◽  
Luis Souhami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Cancer ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

34 Background: The purpose of this analysis was to establish causes of death in a population of intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer treated on two phase III trials. Methods: From October 2000 to September 2010, 1,230 patients were randomized: 630 with HR (ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT00223171) and 600 with IR (#NCT00223145). HR was defined as T3-4, PSA >20 g/ml, Gleason >7 (with at least one of these 3 factors). IR was defined as T1-T2, Gleason < 6 and PSA 10-20 ng/ml or T1-T2, Gleason 7 and PSA < 20 ng/ml. Causes of death were compiled until July 2015 and were established from data sent by the different investigators and centrally reviewed. Causes of death were mainly based on data from clinical records, then by family members, obituaries, death certificates and family physicians. Results: The median follow-up for the 1,230 patients was 7.5 years (HR 8 vs. IR 6.8 years, p<0.001). 30.2% (372/1,230) patients had died: (HR 37% vs. IR 23.2%, p<0.001). A total of 8% (99/1,230) patients developed local, regional, and metastatic prostate cancer recurrences: (HR 11.6% vs. IR 4.3%, p<0.001) and 4.4% (54/1,230) died from prostate cancer: (HR 7.3% vs. IR 1.3%, p<0.001). The most frequent cause of death was a second cancer (120/1,230, 9.8%): (HR 10.6% vs. IR 8.8%, p=NS). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 6.3% (78/1,230) (HR 7.1% vs. IR 5.5%, p=NS) with no statistical difference between the different durations of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) 0, 6, 18, or 36 months. Other causes of death were pulmonary (3.7%), digestive (1.1%), others (3.3%), and unknown (1.7%). Majority of deaths occurred between 3 and 9 years after randomization (HR 70% and IR 73%). Prostate cancer deaths were distributed over all the follow-up period. The 5/10 year overall survival between HR and IR were 88.6%, 91.8%, and 61.6%, 69.8%, respectively with significant differences (p=0.045 and p=0.016). Conclusions: In patients with localized HR and IR prostate cancer, the first cause of death was a second cancer and prostate cancer came as the third one after cardiovascular disease. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of cardiovascular deaths in patients treated with different durations of ADT. Clinical trial information: Clinical Trials, gov. #NCT00223145 - Clinical Trials, gov. #NCT00223171.

scholarly journals Abiraterone acetate and prednisone in chemotherapy-naïve prostate cancer patients: rationale, evidence and clinical utility

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. David Crawford ◽  
Neal D. Shore ◽  
Daniel P. Petrylak ◽  
Celestia S. Higano ◽  
Charles J. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Abiraterone Acetate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Combination Regimens

Abiraterone acetate 1000 mg/day, combined with prednisone 5 mg PO twice daily, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Abiraterone acetate is the oral prodrug of abiraterone, a specific CYP17 inhibitor that blocks androgen biosynthesis within the adrenal glands, testes and tumor microenvironment. In a phase III trial of men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, treatment with oral abiraterone acetate plus prednisone led to a statistically significant improvement in the co-primary endpoints of overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival when compared with placebo plus prednisone. In long-term follow-up of phase III trials, the incidence of corticosteroid-associated adverse events was 25.5% in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone arm compared with 23.3% in the placebo plus prednisone arm. The need for regular patient monitoring and appropriate management of symptoms during long-term use of prednisone must be placed in context with the improvement in survival seen with abiraterone plus prednisone. Within the multidisciplinary environment that is emerging to meet quality and cost imperatives, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone is suitable for use in the chemotherapy-naïve population with minimal symptoms as well as in patients who have been treated with docetaxel and may have symptomatic disease. Ongoing trials are evaluating the role of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, while further trials in the mCRPC setting are evaluating its use in combination regimens.

Role of Sensitivity Analyses in Assessing Progression-Free Survival in Late-Stage Oncology Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (35) ◽  
pp. 5958-5964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suman Bhattacharya ◽  
Gwen Fyfe ◽  
Robert J. Gray ◽  
Daniel J. Sargent
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Potential Bias ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Sensitivity analysis is an important statistical technique that assesses whether the results of phase III trials are robust and likely to be generalizable. Until recently, sensitivity analyses were rarely included in phase III trials, and they remain poorly understood by many oncologists. Sensitivity analyses are critical to understanding the strength of conclusions made in the primary analysis of a late-stage clinical trial. They examine the influence of protocol design errors, unintended biases, deviations from assumptions underlying statistical models, and any unanticipated treatment delivery or practice patterns on trial results. In trials with complex or subjective end points, they also allow an understanding of the extent to which a positive outcome is driven by a single, possibly subjective, and therefore biased, element of an end point. The purposes of this article are to explain how sensitivity analyses are performed, to discuss areas of a clinical trial where sensitivity analyses should focus, and to illuminate the importance of this technique in the rigorous evaluation of late-stage clinical trial data, using specific examples. This article focuses on late-stage trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because sensitivity analyses are particularly important in these cases for which the end point is potentially subject to bias. Three sources of potential bias are explored: assessment time, symptomatic (ie, nonradiologic) disease progression, and missing data. For each source of potential bias, case studies are presented to highlight the role that sensitivity analyses play in determining whether the trial's conclusions are robust.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document