Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials

Yan Sun, Wenting Wu, Daniel Sargent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Progression-free survival is an increasingly popular end point in oncology clinical trials. A complete blinded independent central review (BICR) is often required by regulators in an attempt to reduce the bias in progression-free survival (PFS) assessment. In this paper, we propose a new methodology that uses a sample-based BICR as an audit tool to decide whether a complete BICR is needed. More specifically, we propose a new index, the differential risk, to measure the reading discordance pattern, and develop a corresponding hypothesis testing procedure to decide whether the bias in local evaluation is acceptable. Simulation results demonstrate that our new index is sensitive to the change of discordance pattern; type I error is well controlled in the hypothesis testing procedure, and the calculated sample size provides the desired power.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3923-3932
Number of pages10
JournalStatistics in Medicine
Volume35
Issue number22
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 30 2016

Fingerprint

Oncology
Progression
Clinical Trials
Disease-Free Survival
Hypothesis Testing
Testing
Evaluation
Sample Size
Reading
Audit
Type I error
End point
Regulator
Methodology
Demonstrate
Review
Simulation

Keywords

  • hypothesis test
  • independent review
  • progression free survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Statistics and Probability
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials. / Sun, Yan; Wu, Wenting; Sargent, Daniel.

In: Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 22, 30.09.2016, p. 3923-3932.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sun, Yan ; Wu, Wenting ; Sargent, Daniel. / Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials. In: Statistics in Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 35, No. 22. pp. 3923-3932.
@article{4fc6b6908d8b4b019f064c57151efd16,
title = "Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials",
abstract = "Progression-free survival is an increasingly popular end point in oncology clinical trials. A complete blinded independent central review (BICR) is often required by regulators in an attempt to reduce the bias in progression-free survival (PFS) assessment. In this paper, we propose a new methodology that uses a sample-based BICR as an audit tool to decide whether a complete BICR is needed. More specifically, we propose a new index, the differential risk, to measure the reading discordance pattern, and develop a corresponding hypothesis testing procedure to decide whether the bias in local evaluation is acceptable. Simulation results demonstrate that our new index is sensitive to the change of discordance pattern; type I error is well controlled in the hypothesis testing procedure, and the calculated sample size provides the desired power.",
keywords = "hypothesis test, independent review, progression free survival",
author = "Yan Sun and Wenting Wu and Daniel Sargent",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1002/sim.6963",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "3923--3932",
journal = "Statistics in Medicine",
issn = "0277-6715",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials

AU - Sun, Yan

AU - Wu, Wenting

AU - Sargent, Daniel

PY - 2016/9/30

Y1 - 2016/9/30

N2 - Progression-free survival is an increasingly popular end point in oncology clinical trials. A complete blinded independent central review (BICR) is often required by regulators in an attempt to reduce the bias in progression-free survival (PFS) assessment. In this paper, we propose a new methodology that uses a sample-based BICR as an audit tool to decide whether a complete BICR is needed. More specifically, we propose a new index, the differential risk, to measure the reading discordance pattern, and develop a corresponding hypothesis testing procedure to decide whether the bias in local evaluation is acceptable. Simulation results demonstrate that our new index is sensitive to the change of discordance pattern; type I error is well controlled in the hypothesis testing procedure, and the calculated sample size provides the desired power.

AB - Progression-free survival is an increasingly popular end point in oncology clinical trials. A complete blinded independent central review (BICR) is often required by regulators in an attempt to reduce the bias in progression-free survival (PFS) assessment. In this paper, we propose a new methodology that uses a sample-based BICR as an audit tool to decide whether a complete BICR is needed. More specifically, we propose a new index, the differential risk, to measure the reading discordance pattern, and develop a corresponding hypothesis testing procedure to decide whether the bias in local evaluation is acceptable. Simulation results demonstrate that our new index is sensitive to the change of discordance pattern; type I error is well controlled in the hypothesis testing procedure, and the calculated sample size provides the desired power.

KW - hypothesis test

KW - independent review

KW - progression free survival

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84985919817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84985919817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sim.6963

DO - 10.1002/sim.6963

M3 - Article

C2 - 27089832

AN - SCOPUS:84985919817

VL - 35

SP - 3923

EP - 3932

JO - Statistics in Medicine

JF - Statistics in Medicine

SN - 0277-6715

IS - 22

ER -