[The diagnosis and evaluation of different forms of supravalvular aortic stenosis].

A. Beuren,J. Apitz,J. Koncz

1962-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Towards Optimal Use of Surrogate Markers to Improve Power

Xuan Wang,Layla Parast,Lu Tian,Tianxi Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.08414

2022-09-18

Abstract:Motivated by increasing pressure for decision makers to shorten the time required to evaluate the efficacy of a treatment such that treatments deemed safe and effective can be made publicly available, there has been substantial recent interest in using an earlier or easier to measure surrogate marker, $S$, in place of the primary outcome, $Y$. To validate the utility of a surrogate marker in these settings, a commonly advocated measure is the proportion of treatment effect on the primary outcome that is explained by the treatment effect on the surrogate marker (PTE). Model based and model free estimators for PTE have also been developed. While this measure is very intuitive, it does not directly address the important questions of how $S$ can be used to make inference of the unavailable $Y$ in the next phase clinical trials. In this paper, to optimally use the information of surrogate S, we provide a framework for deriving an optimal transformation of $S$, $g_{opt}(S)$, such that the treatment effect on $g_{opt}(S)$ maximally approximates the treatment effect on $Y$ in a certain sense. Based on the optimally transformed surrogate, $g_{opt}(S)$, we propose a new measure to quantify surrogacy, the relative power (RP), and demonstrate how RP can be used to make decisions with $S$ instead of $Y$ for next phase trials. We propose nonparametric estimation procedures, derive asymptotic properties, and compare the RP measure with the PTE measure. Finite sample performance of our estimators is assessed via a simulation study. We illustrate our proposed procedures using an application to the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) clinical trial to evaluate the utility of hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose as surrogate markers for diabetes.

Methodology
Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials

Alexander D. Sherry,Pavlos Msaouel,Gabrielle S. Kupferman,Timothy A. Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El-Alam,Roshal Patel,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Adina H. Passy,Avital M. Miller,Esther J. Beck,C. David Fuller,Tomer Meirson,Zachary R. McCaw,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.23.24310891

2024-07-24

Abstract:Most oncology trials define superiority of an experimental therapy compared to a control therapy according to frequentist significance thresholds, which are widely misinterpreted. Posterior probability distributions computed by Bayesian inference may be more intuitive measures of uncertainty, particularly for measures of clinical benefit such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Here, we manually reconstructed 194,129 individual patient-level outcomes across 230 phase III, superiority-design, oncology trials. Posteriors were calculated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling using standard priors. All trials interpreted as positive had probabilities > 90% for marginal benefits (HR < 1). However, 38% of positive trials had ≤ 90% probabilities of achieving the MCID (HR < 0.8), even under an enthusiastic prior. A subgroup analysis of 82 trials that led to regulatory approval showed 30% had ≤ 90% probability for meeting the MCID under an enthusiastic prior. Conversely, 24% of negative trials had > 90% probability of achieving marginal benefits, even under a skeptical prior, including 12 trials with a primary endpoint of overall survival. Lastly, a phase III oncology-specific prior from a previous work, which uses published summary statistics rather than reconstructed data to compute posteriors, validated the individual patient-level data findings. Taken together, these results suggest that Bayesian models add considerable unique interpretative value to phase III oncology trials and provide a robust solution for overcoming the discrepancies between refuting the null hypothesis and obtaining a MCID.

Oncology
Quantifying proportion of treatment effect by surrogate endpoint under heterogeneity

Xinzhou Guo,Florence T Bourgeois,Tianxi Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241247719

IF: 2.494

2024-05-09

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Ahead of Print. When the primary endpoints in randomized clinical trials require long term follow-up or are costly to measure, it is often desirable to assess treatment effects on surrogate instead of clinical endpoints. Prior to adopting a surrogate endpoint for such purposes, the extent of its surrogacy on the primary endpoint must be assessed. There is a rich statistical literature on assessing surrogacy in the overall population, much of which is based on quantifying the proportion of treatment effect on the primary endpoint that is explained by the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint. However, the surrogacy of an endpoint may vary across different patient subgroups according to baseline demographic characteristics, and limited methods are currently available to assess overall surrogacy in the presence of potential surrogacy heterogeneity. In this paper, we propose methods that incorporate covariates for baseline information, such as age, to improve overall surrogacy assessment. We use flexible semi-non-parametric modeling strategies to adjust for covariate effects and derive a robust estimate for the proportion of treatment effect of the covariate-adjusted surrogate endpoint. Simulation results suggest that the adjusted surrogate endpoint has greater proportion of treatment effect compared to the unadjusted surrogate endpoint. We apply the proposed method to data from a clinical trial of infliximab and assess the adequacy of the surrogate endpoint in the presence of age heterogeneity.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
On the Evaluation of Surrogate Markers in Real World Data Settings

Larry Han,Xuan Wang,Tianxi Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.05513

2021-04-12

Methodology

Abstract:Shortcomings of randomized clinical trials are pronounced in urgent health crises, when rapid identification of effective treatments is critical. Leveraging short-term surrogates in real-world data (RWD) can guide policymakers evaluating new treatments. In this paper, we develop novel estimators for the proportion of treatment effect (PTE) on the true outcome explained by a surrogate in RWD settings. We propose inverse probability weighted and doubly robust (DR) estimators of an optimal transformation of the surrogate and PTE by semi-nonparametrically modeling the relationship between the true outcome and surrogate given baseline covariates. We show that our estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal, and the DR estimator is consistent when either the propensity score model or outcome regression model is correctly specified. We compare our proposed estimators to existing estimators and show a reduction in bias and gains in efficiency through simulations. We illustrate the utility of our method in obtaining an interpretable PTE by conducting a cross-trial comparison of two biologic therapies for ulcerative colitis.
Construction and characterization of a sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) fosmid library.

Cornelia Lange,Daniela Holtgräwe,B. Schulz,B. Weisshaar,H. Himmelbauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/G08-071

2008-10-08

Genome

Abstract:A sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) fosmid library from the doubled haploid accession KWS2320 encompassing 115 200 independent clones was constructed and characterized. The average insert size of the fosmid library was determined by pulsed field gel electrophoresis to be 39 kbp on average, thus representing 5.9-fold coverage of the sugar beet genome (758 Mbp). PCR screening of plate pools with primer pairs against nine sugar beet genes supported the insert size estimation. BLAST searches with 2951 fosmid end-sequences originating from 1510 clones (1536 clones attempted) revealed little contamination with organellar DNA (2.1% chloroplast DNA, 0.3% mitochondrial DNA). The sugar beet fosmid library will be integrated in the presently ongoing efforts to determine the sequence of the sugar beet genome. Fosmids will be publicly available in the format of plate pools and individual clones.
Supplementary Table S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231415

2024-01-01

Abstract:Table S2: Sensitivity analyses of univariable and multivariable logistic regressions using only progression-free survival (PFS) comparisons for trials with co-primary endpoints (PEPs).
Estimands for clinical endpoints in tuberculosis treatment randomized controlled trials: a retrospective application in a completed trial

Isabelle R. Weir,Suzanne M. Dufault,Patrick P. J. Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-07999-w

IF: 2.728

2024-03-13

Trials

Abstract:Randomized trials for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) rely on a composite primary outcome to capture unfavorable treatment responses. However, variability between trials in the outcome definition and estimation methods complicates across-trial comparisons and hinders the advancement of treatment guidelines. The International Council for Harmonization (ICH) provides international regulatory standards for clinical trials. The estimand framework outlined in the recent ICH E9(R1) addendum offers a timely opportunity for randomized trials of TB treatment to adopt broadly standardized outcome definitions and analytic approaches. We previously proposed and defined four estimands for use in this context. Our objective was to evaluate how the use of these estimands and choice of estimation method impacts results and interpretation of a large phase III TB trial.

medicine, research & experimental
Surrogate endpoint meta-regression: Useful statistics for regulators and trialists

Stuart G Baker,Marissa N D Lassere,Wang Pok Lo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111508

2024-08-31

Abstract:Objectives: The main purpose of using a surrogate endpoint is to estimate the treatment effect on the true endpoint sooner than with a true endpoint. Based on a meta-regression of historical randomized trials with surrogate and true endpoints, we discuss statistics for applying and evaluating surrogate endpoints. Methods: We computed statistics from two types of linear meta-regressions for trial-level data: simple random effects and novel random effects with correlations among estimated treatment effects in trials with more than 2 arms. A key statistic is the estimated intercept of the meta-regression line. An intercept that is small or not statistically significant increases confidence when extrapolating to a new treatment because of consistency with a single causal pathway and invariance to labeling of treatments as controls. For a regulator applying the meta-regression to a new treatment, a useful statistic is the 95% prediction interval. For a clinical trialist planning a trial of a new treatment, useful statistics are the surrogate threshold effect proportion, the sample size multiplier adjusted for dropouts, and the novel true endpoint advantage. Results: We illustrate these statistics with surrogate endpoint meta-regressions involving anti-hypertension treatment, breast cancer screening, and colorectal cancer treatment. Conclusion: Regulators and trialists should consider using these statistics when applying and evaluating surrogate endpoints.
Surrogacy Beyond Prognosis: The Importance of “Trial-Level” Surrogacy

Marc Buyse,Everardo D Saad,Tomasz Burzykowski,Meredith M Regan,Christopher S Sweeney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac006

2022-03-04

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Many candidate surrogate endpoints are currently assessed using a 2-level statistical approach, which consists in checking whether (1) the potential surrogate is associated with the final endpoint in individual patients and (2) the effect of treatment on the surrogate can be used to reliably predict the effect of treatment on the final endpoint. In some situations, condition (1) is fulfilled but condition (2) is not. We use concepts of causal inference to explain this apparently paradoxical situation, illustrating this review with 2 contrasting examples in operable breast cancer: the example of pathological complete response (pCR) and that of disease-free survival (DFS). In a previous meta-analysis, pCR has been shown to be a strong and independent prognostic factor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) after neoadjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer. Yet, in randomized trials, the effects of experimental treatments on pCR have not translated into predictable effects on EFS or OS, making pCR an “individual-level” surrogate, but not a “trial-level” surrogate. In contrast, DFS has been shown to be an acceptable surrogate for OS at both the individual and trial levels in early, HER2-positive breast cancer. The distinction between the prognostic and predictive roles of a tentative surrogate, not always made in the literature, avoids unnecessary confusion and allows better understanding of what it takes to validate a surrogate endpoint that is truly able to replace a final endpoint.
Lifting the veil off treatment effect heterogeneity

Herbert I. Weisberg,Megan Dailey Higgs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2024.04.020

IF: 5.099

2024-05-03

American Heart Journal

Abstract:Clinicians often suspect that a treatment effect can vary across individuals. However, they usually lack "evidence-based" guidance regarding potential heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Potentially actionable HTE is rarely discovered in clinical trials and is widely believed (or rationalized) by researchers to be rare. Conventional statistical methods to test for possible HTE are extremely conservative and tend to reinforce this belief. In truth, though, there is no realistic way to know whether a common, or average, effect estimated from a clinical trial is relevant for all, or even most, patients. This absence of evidence, misinterpreted as evidence of absence, may be resulting in sub-optimal treatment for many individuals. We first summarize the historical context in which current statistical methods for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were developed, focusing on the conceptual and technical limitations that shaped, and restricted, these methods. In particular, we explain how the common-effect assumption came to be virtually unchallenged. Second, we propose a simple graphical method for exploratory data analysis that can provide useful visual evidence of possible HTE. The basic approach is to display the complete distribution of outcome data rather than relying uncritically on simple summary statistics. Modern graphical methods, unavailable when statistical methods were initially formulated a century ago, now render fine-grained interrogation of the data feasible. We propose comparing observed treatment-group data to "pseudo data" engineered to mimic that which would be expected under a particular HTE model, such as the common-effect model. A clear discrepancy between the distributions of the common-effect pseudo data and the actual treatment-effect data provides prima facie evidence of HTE to motivate additional confirmatory investigation. Artificial data are used to illustrate implications of ignoring heterogeneity in practice and how the graphical method can be useful.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Using modified intention-to-treat as a principal stratum estimator for failure to initiate treatment

Brennan C Kahan,Ian R White,Mark Edwards,Michael O Harhay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231160074

2023-03-15

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background:A common intercurrent event affecting many trials is when some participants do not begin their assigned treatment. For example, in a double-blind drug trial, some participants may not receive any dose of study medication. Many trials use a 'modified intention-to-treat' approach, whereby participants who do not initiate treatment are excluded from the analysis. However, it is not clear (a) the estimand being targeted by such an approach and (b) the assumptions necessary for such an approach to be unbiased.Methods:Using potential outcome notation, we demonstrate that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is estimating a principal stratum estimand (i.e. the treatment effect in the subpopulation of participants who would begin treatment, regardless of which arm they were assigned to). The modified intention-to-treat estimator is unbiased for the principal stratum estimand under the assumption that the intercurrent event is not affected by the assigned treatment arm, that is, participants who initiate treatment in one arm would also do so in the other arm (i.e. if someone began the intervention, they would also have begun the control, and vice versa).Results:We identify two key criteria in determining whether the modified intention-to-treat estimator is likely to be unbiased: first, we must be able to measure the participants in each treatment arm who experience the intercurrent event, and second, the assumption that treatment allocation will not affect whether the participant begins treatment must be reasonable. Most double-blind trials will satisfy these criteria, as the decision to start treatment cannot be influenced by the allocation, and we provide an example of an open-label trial where these criteria are likely to be satisfied as well, implying that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum effect in these settings. We also give two examples where these criteria will not be satisfied (one comparing an active intervention vs usual care, where we cannot identify which usual care participants would have initiated the active intervention, and another comparing two active interventions in an unblinded manner, where knowledge of the assigned treatment arm may affect the participant's choice to begin or not), implying that a modified intention-to-treat estimator will be biased in these settings.Conclusion:A modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment can be an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum estimand. Our framework can help identify when the assumptions for unbiasedness are likely to hold, and thus whether modified intention-to-treat is appropriate or not.

medicine, research & experimental
Predicting Treatment Effects from Surrogate Endpoints in Historical Trials in First-Line Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Imtiaz A. Samjoo,Tim Disher,Elena Castro,Jenna Ellis,Stefanie Paganelli,Jonathan Nazari,Alexander Niyazov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102137

IF: 3.121

2024-07-13

Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

Abstract:Surrogate endpoints are becoming increasingly important in health technology assessment, where decisions are based on complex cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) that require numerous input parameters. Daniels and Hughes Surrogate Model was used to predict missing effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line treatments in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to assess the comparative efficacy of these treatments. Databases were searched (inception to October 2022) using Ovid®. Several grey literature searches were also conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021283512). Available trial data for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were used to predict the unreported effect of rPFS or OS for relevant comparator treatments. Bayesian NMAs were conducted using observed and predicted treatment effects. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best (p-best) were obtained. Twenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria and of these, 8 reported jointly rPFS and OS; while rPFS was predicted for 12 RCTs and 10 comparators, and OS was predicted for 5 RCTs and 6 comparators. A nonstandard dose of docetaxel (docetaxel 50 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks) had the highest probability of being the most effective for rPFS (p-best: 59%) and OS (p-best: 48%), followed by talazoparib plus enzalutamide (13% and 19%, respectively). Advanced surrogate modelling techniques allowed obtaining relevant parameter and indirect estimates of previously unavailable data and may be used to populate future CEMs requiring rPFS and OS in first-line mCRPC.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation

Jiawei Wei,Jiajun Xu,Björn Bornkamp,Ray Lin,Hong Tian,Dong Xi,Xin Zhang,Ziqiang Zhao,Satrajit Roychoudhury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2292774

2024-01-07

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

Abstract:ICH E9(R1) specifies the importance of precisely defining the treatment effect for clinical trials—to inform patient choices and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. FDA's guidance on covariate adjustment encourages the judicious use of baseline covariates to enhance efficiency. Careful consideration is required when adjusting for covariates in nonlinear models such as logistic regression and Cox regression. For these nonlinear models, including baseline covariates can change the targeted treatment effect (estimand). It is also crucial that the proposed statistical analyses align with the estimand of interest. Covariate-adjusted estimators used for unconditional treatment effect are typically robust to misspecification of the used regression models. Despite extensive literature and recommendations by the FDA on the statistical theory and properties of these methods, the real-life application of such methodologies is still limited. Moreover, a few open questions require further discussion, especially for time-to-event outcomes. In this article, we present causal estimands definition of conditional and unconditional treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. We also evaluate different estimation methods for estimating conditional and unconditional treatment effects for the binary and time-to-event endpoints. We also discuss practical considerations in choosing the conditional versus unconditional effect, implementing the estimation methods, and interpreting results.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Statistical power in parallel group point exposure studies with time-to-event outcomes: an empirical comparison of the performance of randomized controlled trials and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach

Peter C. Austin,Tibor Schuster,Robert W. Platt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0081-3

2015-10-15

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:BackgroundEstimating statistical power is an important component of the design of both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods for estimating statistical power in RCTs have been well described and can be implemented simply. In observational studies, statistical methods must be used to remove the effects of confounding that can occur due to non-random treatment assignment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score is an attractive method for estimating the effects of treatment using observational data. However, sample size and power calculations have not been adequately described for these methods.MethodsWe used an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to compare the statistical power of an IPTW analysis of an observational study with time-to-event outcomes with that of an analysis of a similarly-structured RCT. We examined the impact of four factors on the statistical power function: number of observed events, prevalence of treatment, the marginal hazard ratio, and the strength of the treatment-selection process.ResultsWe found that, on average, an IPTW analysis had lower statistical power compared to an analysis of a similarly-structured RCT. The difference in statistical power increased as the magnitude of the treatment-selection model increased.ConclusionsThe statistical power of an IPTW analysis tended to be lower than the statistical power of a similarly-structured RCT.

health care sciences & services
Assessing contribution of treatment phases through tipping point analyses via counterfactual elicitation using rank preserving structural failure time models

Sudipta Bhattacharya,Jyotirmoy Dey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.01480

2021-07-04

Abstract:This article provides a novel approach to assess the importance of specific treatment phases within a treatment regimen through tipping point analyses (TPA) of a time-to-event endpoint using rank-preserving-structural-failure-time (RPSFT) modelling. In oncology clinical research, an experimental treatment is often added to the standard of care therapy in multiple treatment phases to improve patient outcomes. When the resulting new regimen provides a meaningful benefit over standard of care, gaining insights into the contribution of each treatment phase becomes important to properly guide clinical practice. New statistical approaches are needed since traditional methods are inadequate in answering such questions. RPSFT modelling is an approach for causal inference, typically used to adjust for treatment switching in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. A tipping-point analysis is commonly used in situations where a statistically significant treatment effect is suspected to be an artifact of missing or unobserved data rather than a real treatment difference. The methodology proposed in this article is an amalgamation of these two ideas to investigate the contribution of a specific component of a regimen comprising multiple treatment phases. We provide different variants of the method and construct indices of contribution of a treatment phase to the overall benefit of a regimen that facilitates interpretation of results. The proposed approaches are illustrated with findings from a recently concluded, real-life phase 3 cancer clinical trial. We conclude with several considerations and recommendations for practical implementation of this new methodology.

Methodology
A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Oriana Ciani,Anthony M Manyara,Philippa Davies,Derek Stewart,Christopher J Weir,Amber E Young,Jane Blazeby,Nancy J Butcher,Sylwia Bujkiewicz,An-Wen Chan,Dalia Dawoud,Martin Offringa,Mario Ouwens,Asbjørn Hróbjartssson,Alain Amstutz,Luca Bertolaccini,Vito Domenico Bruno,Declan Devane,Christina D C M Faria,Peter B Gilbert,Ray Harris,Marissa Lassere,Lucio Marinelli,Sarah Markham,John H Powers,Yousef Rezaei,Laura Richert,Falk Schwendicke,Larisa G Tereshchenko,Achilles Thoma,Alparslan Turan,Andrew Worrall,Robin Christensen,Gary S Collins,Joseph S Ross,Rod S Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102283

IF: 15.1

2023-10-17

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.
Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A Lin,Zachary R McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B El Alam,Alexander D Sherry,Sonal S Noticewala,Clifton D Fuller,Charles R Thomas Jr,Ryan Sun,J Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-0566

2024-10-15

Abstract:Purpose: Survival analyses of novel agents with long-term responders often exhibit differential hazard rates over time. Such proportional hazards violations (PHV) may reduce the power of the log-rank test and lead to misinterpretation of trial results. We aimed to characterize the incidence and study attributes associated with PHVs in phase III oncology trials and assess the utility of restricted mean survival time and maximum combination test as additional analyses. Experimental design: Clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed were searched to identify two-arm, randomized, phase III superiority-design cancer trials with time-to-event primary endpoints and published results through 2020. Patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. PHVs were assessed using Schoenfeld residuals. Results: Three hundred fifty-seven Kaplan-Meier comparisons across 341 trials were analyzed, encompassing 292,831 enrolled patients. PHVs were identified in 85/357 [23.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.7%, 28.5%] comparisons. In multivariable analysis, non-overall survival endpoints [OR, 2.16 (95% CI, 1.21, 3.87); P = 0.009] were associated with higher odds of PHVs, and immunotherapy comparisons [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 0.98, 3.86); P = 0.058] were weakly suggestive of higher odds of PHVs. Few trials with PHVs (25/85, 29.4%) prespecified a statistical plan to account for PHVs. Fourteen trials with PHVs exhibited discordant statistical signals with restricted mean survival time or maximum combination test, of which 10 (71%) reported negative results. Conclusions: PHVs are common across therapy types, and attempts to account for PHVs in statistical design are lacking despite the potential for results exhibiting nonproportional hazards to be misinterpreted.
How to relate potential outcomes: Estimating individual treatment effects under a given specified partial correlation

Mingyang Cai,Stef van Buuren,Gerko Vink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.12931

2022-08-27

Computation

Abstract:In most medical research, the average treatment effect is used to evaluate a treatment's performance. However, precision medicine requires knowledge of individual treatment effects: What is the difference between a unit's measurement under treatment and control conditions? In most treatment effect studies, such answers are not possible because the outcomes under both experimental conditions are not jointly observed. This makes the problem of causal inference a missing data problem. We propose to solve this problem by imputing the individual potential outcomes under a specified partial correlation (SPC), thereby allowing for heterogeneous treatment effects. We demonstrate in simulation that our proposed methodology yields valid inferences for the marginal distribution of potential outcomes. We highlight that the posterior distribution of individual treatment effects varies with different specified partial correlations. This property can be used to study the sensitivity of optimal treatment outcomes under different correlation specifications. In a practical example on HIV-1 treatment data, we demonstrate that the proposed methodology generalises to real-world data. Imputing under the SPC, therefore, opens up a wealth of possibilities for studying heterogeneous treatment effects on incomplete data and the further adaptation of individual treatment effects.
Principal causal effect identification and surrogate endpoint evaluation by multiple trials

Zhichao Jiang,Peng Ding,Zhi Geng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1507.05935

2015-07-22

Abstract:Principal stratification is a causal framework to analyze randomized experiments with a post-treatment variable between the treatment and endpoint variables. Because the principal strata defined by the potential outcomes of the post-treatment variable are not observable, we generally cannot identify the causal effects within principal strata. Motivated by a real data set of phase III adjuvant colon clinical trials, we propose approaches to identifying and estimating the principal causal effects via multiple trials. For the identifiability, we remove the commonly-used exclusion restriction assumption by stipulating that the principal causal effects are homogeneous across these trials. To remove another commonly-used monotonicity assumption, we give a necessary condition for the local identifiability, which requires at least three trials. Applying our approaches to the data from adjuvant colon clinical trials, we find that the commonly-used monotonicity assumption is untenable, and disease-free survival with three-year follow-up is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival with five-year follow-up, which satisfies both the causal necessity and the causal sufficiency. We also propose a sensitivity analysis approach based on Bayesian hierarchical models to investigate the impact of the deviation from the homogeneity assumption.

Statistics Theory,Applications
The frequency of use and enrollment impact of patient-centered outcomes in prostate cancer clinical trials.

Madison Krischak,Merrick Bank,Mary Byrnes,Kristian Stensland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.115

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:115 Background: Cancer treatments should help patients live either longer or better by improving patient quantity or quality of life. However, some trial endpoints do not correlate with overall survival, and are not noticeable to patients. Selecting endpoints for clinical trials that reflect these goals could improve the discovery process by ensuring trial results are of direct interest to patients, and perhaps by improving enrollment rates to trials. However, how frequently prostate cancer clinical trials use patient-centered outcomes, and how outcome type impacts trial enrollment, is unknown. Methods: On October 23, 2022, we queried ClinicalTrials.gov for full text records of phase 2-3 prostate cancer trials started after January 1, 2007. We extracted primary outcomes and other trial characteristics using a custom Python script. Two reviewers categorized each outcome into categories (e.g., overall survival, response rate, patient reported measure). As previously studied, the only valid surrogate for overall survival is metastasis-free survival. We considered these two outcomes or any outcome directly noticeable to a patient to be a patient-centered outcome. For completed or terminated trials, we defined ‘sufficient accrual’ as attaining 85% of a trial’s goal enrollment. We identified associations between trial outcome types and sufficient trial enrollment with chi-square tests and logistic regression. Results: Of 1,717 prostate cancer trials, only 37% used a patient-centered outcome, with 6% using overall or metastasis-free survival. Among 318 Phase 3 trials, 49% used a patient-centered outcome and 26% used overall or metastasis-free survival. Of 731 completed or terminated prostate cancer trials, 55% of trials and 68% of phase 3 trials reached sufficient enrollment (85% of enrollment goal). On multivariable analysis, trials with an overall survival endpoint had higher odds of sufficient enrollment (OR 8.0 [95% CI 2.2-33.5], p < 0.01), but trials with any patient-centered outcome had lower odds of sufficient enrollment (OR 0.25 [95% CI 0.11-0.54], p < 0.01). Conclusions: Less than half of prostate cancer trials use an outcome that is clearly patient-centered (i.e., affecting overall survival or an outcome noticeable to a patient). Further work is needed to clarify the use, understanding, and effect of outcome selection in cancer trials. Realigning trial efforts with patient-centered goals could improve the efficiency, productivity, and applicability of clinical trials.

oncology

[The diagnosis and evaluation of different forms of supravalvular aortic stenosis].

Towards Optimal Use of Surrogate Markers to Improve Power

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials

Quantifying proportion of treatment effect by surrogate endpoint under heterogeneity

On the Evaluation of Surrogate Markers in Real World Data Settings

Construction and characterization of a sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) fosmid library.

Supplementary Table S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Estimands for clinical endpoints in tuberculosis treatment randomized controlled trials: a retrospective application in a completed trial

Surrogate endpoint meta-regression: Useful statistics for regulators and trialists

Surrogacy Beyond Prognosis: The Importance of “Trial-Level” Surrogacy

Lifting the veil off treatment effect heterogeneity

Using modified intention-to-treat as a principal stratum estimator for failure to initiate treatment

Predicting Treatment Effects from Surrogate Endpoints in Historical Trials in First-Line Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation

Statistical power in parallel group point exposure studies with time-to-event outcomes: an empirical comparison of the performance of randomized controlled trials and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach

Assessing contribution of treatment phases through tipping point analyses via counterfactual elicitation using rank preserving structural failure time models

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

How to relate potential outcomes: Estimating individual treatment effects under a given specified partial correlation

Principal causal effect identification and surrogate endpoint evaluation by multiple trials

The frequency of use and enrollment impact of patient-centered outcomes in prostate cancer clinical trials.