Abstract:Background: Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed assuming proportional hazards (PH) of the treatment effect. The sample size calculation is based on a logrank test. However, non-proportional hazards are increasingly common. At analysis, the estimated hazards ratio with a confidence interval is usually presented. The estimate is often obtained from a Cox PH model with treatment as a covariate. If non-proportional hazards are present, the logrank and equivalent Cox tests may lose power. To safeguard power, we previously suggested a 'joint test' combining the Cox test with a test of non-proportional hazards. Unfortunately, a larger sample size is needed to preserve power under PH. Here, we describe a novel test that unites the Cox test with a permutation test based on restricted mean survival time. Methods: We propose a combined hypothesis test based on a permutation test of the difference in restricted mean survival time across time. The test involves the minimum of the Cox and permutation test P-values. We approximate its null distribution and correct it for correlation between the two P-values. Using extensive simulations, we assess the type 1 error and power of the combined test under several scenarios and compare with other tests. We investigate powering a trial using the combined test. Results: The type 1 error of the combined test is close to nominal. Power under proportional hazards is slightly lower than for the Cox test. Enhanced power is available when the treatment difference shows an 'early effect', an initial separation of survival curves which diminishes over time. The power is reduced under a 'late effect', when little or no difference in survival curves is seen for an initial period and then a late separation occurs. We propose a method of powering a trial using the combined test. The 'insurance premium' offered by the combined test to safeguard power under non-PH represents about a single-digit percentage increase in sample size. Conclusions: The combined test increases trial power under an early treatment effect and protects power under other scenarios. Use of restricted mean survival time facilitates testing and displaying a generalized treatment effect.

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

Supplementary Data S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Data S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Figure S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

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

Supplementary Table S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Figure S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

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

Supplementary Figure S4 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

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

Statistical Considerations for Evaluating Treatment Effect under Various Non-proportional Hazard Scenarios

Using Data Augmentation to Facilitate Conduct of Phase I-Ii Clinical Trials with Delayed Outcomes

Alternative Analysis Methods for Time to Event Endpoints under Non-proportional Hazards: A Comparative Analysis

Quantifying treatment differences in confirmatory trials under non-proportional hazards

Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated

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

Robust Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials With Non-proportional Hazards: A Straw Man Guidance from a Cross-pharma Working Group

Covariate-adjusted Group Sequential Comparisons of Survival Probabilities

Alternative Analysis Methods for Time to Event Endpoints Under Nonproportional Hazards: A Comparative Analysis

Bayesian Phase II Adaptive Randomization by Jointly Modeling Time-to-event Efficacy and Binary Toxicity