Sample size calculation for the augmented logrank test in randomized clinical trials

Satoshi Hattori,Sho Komukai,Tim Friede

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9374

2022-03-23

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:Statistics in Medicine, EarlyView.

public, environmental & occupational health,medicine, research & experimental,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On sample size determination for restricted mean survival time-based tests in randomized clinical trials

Satoshi Hattori,Hajime Uno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.08259

2022-12-16

Abstract:Restricted mean survival time (RMST) is gaining attention as a measure to quantify the treatment effect on survival outcomes in randomized clinical trials. Several methods to determine sample size based on the RMST-based tests have been proposed. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no discussion about the power and sample size regarding the augmented version of RMST-based tests, which utilize baseline covariates for a gain in estimation efficiency and in power for testing the no treatment effect. The conventional event-driven study design based on the log-rank test allows us to calculate the power for a given hazard ratio without specifying the survival functions. In contrast, the existing sample size determination methods for the RMST-based tests relies on the adequacy of the assumptions of the entire survival curves of two groups. Furthermore, to handle the augmented test, the correlation between the baseline covariates and the martingale residuals must be handled. To address these issues, we propose an approximated sample size formula for the augmented version of the RMST-based test, which does not require specifying the entire survival curve in the treatment group, and also a sample size recalculation approach to update the correlations between the baseline covariates and the martingale residuals with the blinded data. The proposed procedure will enable the studies to have the target power for a given RMST difference even when correct survival functions cannot be specified at the design stage.

Methodology
Sample size calculation of clinical trials in geriatric medicine

Graziella D’Arrigo,Stefanos Roumeliotis,Claudia Torino,Giovanni Tripepi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01595-z

2020-05-26

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract:A preliminary step when planning a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the sample size calculation. This is the determination of the optimal number of patients which ensures an adequate power to the study to detect as statistically significant a certain between-arms difference, if any, in the frequency/magnitude of a specific endpoint. The sample size calculation is performed by specific calculators requiring as input variables the expected effect size, the alpha error (α), the beta error (β) and the allocation ratio, this latter being the ratio between the number of participants allocated to the arms of a RCT. Herein, we provide a series of examples of sample size calculation in the context of superiority RCTs in elderly.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Sample size estimation for cancer randomized trials in the presence of heterogeneous populations

Derek Dinart,Carine Bellera,Virginie Rondeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13527

IF: 1.701

2021-09-03

Biometrics

Abstract:A key issue when designing clinical trials is the estimation of the number of subjects required. Assuming for multicentre trials or biomarker-stratified designs that the effect size between treatment arms is the same among the whole study population might be inappropriate. Limited work is available for properly determining the sample size for such trials. However, we need to account for both, the heterogeneity of the baseline hazards over clusters or strata but also the heterogeneity of the treatment effects, otherwise sample size estimates might be biased. Most existing methods account for either heterogeneous baseline hazards or treatment effects but they dot not allow to simultaneously account for both sources of variations. This article proposes an approach to calculate sample size formula for clustered or stratified survival data relying on frailty models. Both theoretical derivations and simulation results show the proposed approach can guarantee the desired power in worst case scenarios and is often much more efficient than existing approaches. Application to a real clinical trial designs is also illustrated.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

statistics & probability,mathematical & computational biology,biology
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

Milind A. Phadnis,Matthew S. Mayo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.202000043

IF: 1.715

2021-07-17

Biometrical Journal

Abstract:Sample size calculations for two-arm clinical trials with a time-to-event endpoint have traditionally used the assumption of proportional hazards (PH) or the assumption of exponentially distributed survival times. Available software provides methods for sample size calculation using a nonparametric logrank test, Schoenfeld's formula for Cox PH model, or parametric calculations specific to the exponential distribution. In cases where the PH assumption is not valid, the first-choice method is to compute sample size assuming a piecewise linear survival curve (Lakatos approach) for both the control and treatment arms with judiciously chosen cut-points. Recent advances in literature have used the assumption of Weibull distributed times for single-arm trials, and, newer methods have emerged that allow sample size calculations for two-arm trials using the assumption of proportional time (PT) while considering non-PH. These methods, however, always assume an instantaneous effect of treatment relative to control requiring that the effect size be defined by a single number whose magnitude is preserved throughout the trial duration. Here, we consider the scenarios where the hypothesized benefit of treatment relative to control may not be constant giving rise to the notion of Relative Time (RT). By assuming that survival times for control and treatment arm come from two different Weibull distributions with different location and shape parameters, we develop the methodology for sample size calculation for specific cases of both non-PH and non-PT. Simulations are conducted to assess the operation characteristics of the proposed method and a practical example is discussed.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two-arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Alan R. Vazquez,Weng Kee Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06058

2024-02-09

Abstract:Modern randomization methods in clinical trials are invariably adaptive, meaning that the assignment of the next subject to a treatment group uses the accumulated information in the trial. Some of the recent adaptive randomization methods use mathematical programming to construct attractive clinical trials that balance the group features, such as their sizes and covariate distributions of their subjects. We review some of these methods and compare their performance with common covariate-adaptive randomization methods for small clinical trials. We introduce an energy distance measure that compares the discrepancy between the two groups using the joint distribution of the subjects' covariates. This metric is more appealing than evaluating the discrepancy between the groups using their marginal covariate distributions. Using numerical experiments, we demonstrate the advantages of the mathematical programming methods under the new measure. In the supplementary material, we provide R codes to reproduce our study results and facilitate comparisons of different randomization procedures.

Methodology
Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two‐arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Alan R. Vazquez,Weng‐Kee Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2388

2024-04-14

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Modern randomization methods in clinical trials are invariably adaptive, meaning that the assignment of the next subject to a treatment group uses the accumulated information in the trial. Some of the recent adaptive randomization methods use mathematical programming to construct attractive clinical trials that balance the group features, such as their sizes and covariate distributions of their subjects. We review some of these methods and compare their performance with common covariate‐adaptive randomization methods for small clinical trials. We introduce an energy distance measure that compares the discrepancy between the two groups using the joint distribution of the subjects' covariates. This metric is more appealing than evaluating the discrepancy between the groups using their marginal covariate distributions. Using numerical experiments, we demonstrate the advantages of the mathematical programming methods under the new measure. In the supplementary material, we provide R codes to reproduce our study results and facilitate comparisons of different randomization procedures.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Sample size estimation for modified Poisson analysis of cluster randomized trials with a binary outcome

Fan Li,Guangyu Tong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280221990415

IF: 2.494

2021-04-07

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:The modified Poisson regression coupled with a robust sandwich variance has become a viable alternative to log-binomial regression for estimating the marginal relative risk in cluster randomized trials. However, a corresponding sample size formula for relative risk regression via the modified Poisson model is currently not available for cluster randomized trials. Through analytical derivations, we show that there is no loss of asymptotic efficiency for estimating the marginal relative risk via the modified Poisson regression relative to the log-binomial regression. This finding holds both under the independence working correlation and under the exchangeable working correlation provided a simple modification is used to obtain the consistent intraclass correlation coefficient estimate. Therefore, the sample size formulas developed for log-binomial regression naturally apply to the modified Poisson regression in cluster randomized trials. We further extend the sample size formulas to accommodate variable cluster sizes. An extensive Monte Carlo simulation study is carried out to validate the proposed formulas. We find that the proposed formulas have satisfactory performance across a range of cluster size variability, as long as suitable finite-sample corrections are applied to the sandwich variance estimator and the number of clusters is at least 10. Our findings also suggest that the sample size estimate under the exchangeable working correlation is more robust to cluster size variability, and recommend the use of an exchangeable working correlation over an independence working correlation for both design and analysis. The proposed sample size formulas are illustrated using the Stop Colorectal Cancer (STOP CRC) trial.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

Hansheng Wang,Shein-Chung Chow,Gang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1081/BIP-120016231

2007-01-01

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Sample size calculation formulas for testing equality, noninferiority, superiority, and equivalence based on odds ratio were derived under both parallel and one-arm crossover designs. An example concerning the study of odds ratio between a test compound (treatment) and a standard therapy (control) for prevention of relapse in subjects with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder is presented to illustrate the derived formulas for sample size calculation for various hypotheses under both a parallel design and a crossover design. Simulations were performed to assess the adequacy of the sample size calculation formulas. Simulation results were given at the end of the paper.
Sample size determination based on rank tests in clinical trials.

Hansheng Wang,Bin Chen,Shein-Chung Chow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1081/BIP-120024206

2007-01-01

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:The problem of sample size determination based on three commonly used non-parametric rank based tests, namely, one-sample Wilcoxon's rank sum test, two-sample's Wilcoxon's rank sum test, and the rank-based test for independence is studied. Explicit formulas for variabilities of the test statistics under the alternative hypotheses are derived. Consequently, close forms of power functions of these test statistics are obtained for sample size determination utilizing the concept of higher order polynominal equations. Simulation studies were performed to evaluate the finite samples performance of the derived sample size formulas. The results indicates that the derived methods work well with moderate sample size.
Using non-inferiority test of proportions in design of randomized non-inferiority trials with time-to-event endpoint with a focus on low-event-rate setting

Lingyun Ji,Todd A Alonzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241284786

2024-10-14

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background/aimsFor cancers with low incidence, low event rates, and a time-to-event endpoint, a randomized non-inferiority trial designed based on the logrank test can require a large sample size with significantly prolonged enrollment duration, making such a non-inferiority trial not feasible. This article evaluates a design based on a non-inferiority test of proportions, compares its required sample size to the non-inferiority logrank test, assesses whether there are scenarios for which a non-inferiority test of proportions can be more efficient, and provides guidelines in usage of a non-inferiority test of proportions.MethodsThis article describes the sample size calculation for a randomized non-inferiority trial based on a non-inferiority logrank test or a non-inferiority test of proportions. The sample size required by the two design methods are compared for a wide range of scenarios, varying the underlying Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate.ResultsOur results showed that there are scenarios for which the non-inferiority test of proportions can have significantly reduced sample size. Specifically, the non-inferiority test of proportions can be considered for cancers with more than 80% long-term survival rate. We provide guidance in choice of this design approach based on parameters of the Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate.ConclusionFor cancers with low incidence and low event rates, a non-inferiority trial based on the logrank test is not feasible due to its large required sample size and prolonged enrollment duration. The use of a non-inferiority test of proportions can make a randomized non-inferiority Phase III trial feasible.

medicine, research & experimental
Analysis and sample size calculation within the responder stratified exponential survival model

Samuel Kilian,Johannes Krisam,Meinhard Kieser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.11599

2022-05-24

Abstract:The primary endpoint in oncology is usually overall survival, where differences between therapies may only be observable after many years. To avoid withholding of a promising therapy, preliminary approval based on a surrogate endpoint is possible. The approval can be confirmed later by assessing overall survival within the same study. In these trials, the correlation between surrogate endpoint and overall survival has to be taken into account for sample size calculation and analysis. For a binary surrogate endpoint, this relation can be modeled by means of the responder stratified exponential survival (RSES) model proposed by Xia, Cui, and Yang (2014). We derive properties of the model and confidence intervals based on Maximum Likelihood estimators. Furthermore, we present an approximate and an exact test for survival difference. Type I error rate, power, and required sample size for both newly developed tests are determined exactly. These characteristics are compared to those of the logrank test. We show that the exact test performs best. The power of the logrank test is considerably lower in some situations. We conclude that the logrank test should not be used within the RSES model. The proposed method for sample size calculation works well. The interpretability of our proposed methods is discussed.

Methodology
Saddlepoint approximation for weighted log-rank tests based on block truncated binomial design

Haidy A. Newer,Amel Abd-El-Monem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2022.2108825

2022-08-19

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Clustered data frequently occur in biomedical research fields and clinical trials. The log-rank tests are widely used for two-independent samples of clustered data tests. The randomized block design and truncated binomial design are used for forcing balance in clinical trials and reducing selection bias. In this paper, survival clustered data are randomized by generalized randomized block, and subsequently clustered data in each block are randomized by truncated binomial design. Consequently, the p-values of the null permutation distribution of log-rank tests for clustered data are approximated via the double saddlepoint approximation method. Comprehensive numerical studies are carried out to assess the accuracy of the saddlepoint approximation. This approximation has a great accuracy over the asymptotic normal approximation.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Design of randomized clinical trials with a binary endpoint: Conditional versus unconditional analyses of a two‐by‐two table

Edward L. Korn,Boris Freidlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.10115

2024-05-25

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:When designing a randomized clinical trial to compare two treatments, the sample size required to have desired power with a specified type 1 error depends on the hypothesis testing procedure. With a binary endpoint (e.g., response), the trial results can be displayed in a 2 × 2 table. If one does the analysis conditional on the number of positive responses, then using Fisher's exact test has an actual type 1 error less than or equal to the specified nominal type 1 error. Alternatively, one can use one of many unconditional "exact" tests that also preserve the type 1 error and are less conservative than Fisher's exact test. In particular, the unconditional test of Boschloo is always at least as powerful as Fisher's exact test, leading to smaller required sample sizes for clinical trials. However, many statisticians have argued over the years that the conditional analysis with Fisher's exact test is the only appropriate procedure. Since having smaller clinical trials is an extremely important consideration, we review the general arguments given for the conditional analysis of a 2 × 2 table in the context of a randomized clinical trial. We find the arguments not relevant in this context, or, if relevant, not completely convincing, suggesting the sample‐size advantage of the unconditional tests should lead to their recommended use. We also briefly suggest that since designers of clinical trials practically always have target null and alternative response rates, there is the possibility of using this information to improve the power of the unconditional tests.

public, environmental & occupational health,medicine, research & experimental,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Sample size calculation for clinical trials with correlated count measurements based on the negative binomial distribution

Dateng Li,Song Zhang,Jing Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8378

2019-10-25

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:Statistical inference based on correlated count measurements are frequently performed in biomedical studies. Most of existing sample size calculation methods for count outcomes are developed under the Poisson model. Deviation from the Poisson assumption (equality of mean and variance) has been widely documented in practice, which indicates urgent needs of sample size methods with more realistic assumptions to ensure valid experimental design. In this study, we investigate sample size calculation for clinical trials with correlated count measurements based on the negative binomial distribution. This approach is flexible to accommodate overdispersion and unequal measurement intervals, as well as arbitrary randomization ratios, missing data patterns, and correlation structures. Importantly, the derived sample size formulas have closed forms both for the comparison of slopes and for the comparison of time‐averaged responses, which greatly reduces the burden of implementation in practice. We conducted extensive simulation to demonstrate that the proposed method maintains the nominal levels of power and type I error over a wide range of design configurations. We illustrate the application of this approach using a real epileptic trial.

public, environmental & occupational health,medicine, research & experimental,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated

Patrick Royston,Mahesh K B Parmar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0110-x

2016-02-11

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.
Empirical power comparison of statistical tests in contemporary phase III randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes in oncology

Miki Horiguchi,Michael J Hassett,Hajime Uno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774520940256

Abstract:Background: More than 95% of recent cancer randomized controlled trials used the log-rank test to detect a treatment difference making it the predominant tool for comparing two survival functions. As with other tests, the log-rank test has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it offers the highest power against proportional hazards differences, which may be a major reason why alternative methods have rarely been employed in practice. The performance of statistical tests has traditionally been investigated both theoretically and numerically for several patterns of difference between two survival functions. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no attempt to compare the performance of various statistical tests using empirical data from past oncology randomized controlled trials. So, it is unknown whether the log-rank test offers a meaningful power advantage over alternative testing methods in contemporary cancer randomized controlled trials. Focusing on recently reported phase III cancer randomized controlled trials, we assessed whether the log-rank test gave meaningfully greater power when compared with five alternative testing methods: generalized Wilcoxon, test based on maximum of test statistics from multiple weighted log-rank tests, difference in t-year event rate, and difference in restricted mean survival time with fixed and adaptive τ. Methods: Using manuscripts from cancer randomized controlled trials recently published in high-tier clinical journals, we reconstructed patient-level data for overall survival (69 trials) and progression-free survival (54 trials). For each trial endpoint, we estimated the empirical power of each test. Empirical power was measured as the proportion of trials for which a test would have identified a significant result (p value < .05). Results: For overall survival, t-year event rate offered the lowest (30.4%) empirical power and restricted mean survival time with fixed τ offered the highest (43.5%). The empirical power of the other types of tests was almost identical (36.2%-37.7%). For progression-free survival, the tests we investigated offered numerically equivalent empirical power (55.6%-61.1%). No single test consistently outperformed any other test. Conclusion: The empirical power assessment with the past cancer randomized controlled trials provided new insights on the performance of statistical tests. Although the log-rank test has been used in almost all trials, our study suggests that the log-rank test is not the only option from an empirical power perspective. Near universal use of the log-rank test is not supported by a meaningful difference in empirical power. Clinical trial investigators could consider alternative methods, beyond the log-rank test, for their primary analysis when designing a cancer randomized controlled trial. Factors other than power (e.g. interpretability of the estimated treatment effect) should garner greater consideration when selecting statistical tests for cancer randomized controlled trials.
Optimal sample size allocation for two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints

Marietta Kirchner,Stefanie Schüpke,Meinhard Kieser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2375

2024-03-14

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:The sample size of a clinical trial has to be large enough to ensure sufficient power for achieving the aim the study. On the other side, for ethical and economical reasons it should not be larger than necessary. The sample size allocation is one of the parameters that influences the required total sample size. For two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints, we performed extensive computations over a wide range of scenarios to determine the optimal allocation ratio that minimizes the total sample size if all other parameters are fixed. The results demonstrate, that for both superiority and non‐inferiority trials the optimal allocation may deviate considerably from the case of equal sample size in both groups. However, the saving in sample size when allocating the total sample size optimally as compared to balanced allocation is typically small.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Sample Size Calculation for Cluster Randomized Trials with Zero-inflated Count Outcomes

Zhengyang Zhou,Dateng Li,Song Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.10117

2020-09-22

Abstract:Cluster randomized trails (CRT) have been widely employed in medical and public health research. Many clinical count outcomes, such as the number of falls in nursing homes, exhibit excessive zero values. In the presence of zero inflation, traditional power analysis methods for count data based on Poisson or negative binomial distribution may be inadequate. In this study, we present a sample size method for CRTs with zero-inflated count outcomes. It is developed based on GEE regression directly modeling the marginal mean of a ZIP outcome, which avoids the challenge of testing two intervention effects under traditional modeling approaches. A closed-form sample size formula is derived which properly accounts for zero inflation, ICCs due to clustering, unbalanced randomization, and variability in cluster size. Robust approaches, including t-distribution-based approximation and Jackknife re-sampling variance estimator, are employed to enhance trial properties under small sample sizes. Extensive simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. An application example is presented in a real clinical trial setting.

Applications,Methodology
Robust Tests for Treatment Effect in Survival Analysis under Covariate-Adaptive Randomization

Ting Ye,Jun Shao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12392

2019-04-03

Abstract:Covariate-adaptive randomization is popular in clinical trials with sequentially arrived patients for balancing treatment assignments across prognostic factors which may have influence on the response. However, existing theory on tests for treatment effect under covariate-adaptive randomization is limited to tests under linear or generalized linear models, although covariate-adaptive randomization has been used in survival analysis for a long time and its main application is in survival analysis. Often times, practitioners would simply adopt a conventional test such as the log-rank test or score test to compare two treatments, which is controversial since tests derived under simple randomization may not be valid under other randomization schemes. In this article, we prove that the log-rank test valid under simple randomization is conservative in terms of type I error under covariate-adaptive randomization, and the robust score test developed under simple randomization is no longer robust under covariate-adaptive randomization. We then propose a calibration type log-rank or score test that is valid and robust under both simple randomization and a large family of covariate-adaptive randomization schemes. Furthermore, we obtain Pitman's efficacy of log-rank and score tests to compare their asymptotic relative efficiency. Simulation studies about the type I error and power of various tests are presented under several popular randomization schemes.

Statistics Theory
Log-rank tests for censored clustered data under generalized randomized block design: Saddlepoint approximation

Abd El-Raheem M. Abd El-Raheem,Ehab F. Abd-Elfattah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2020.1858310

2020-12-21

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:The weighted log-rank class is the common and widely used class of two-sample tests for clustered data. Clustered data with censored failure times often arise in tumorigenicity investigations and clinical trials. The randomized block design is a significant design that reduces both unintentional bias and selection bias. Accordingly, the p-values of the null permutation distribution of weighted log-rank class for clustered data are approximated using the double saddlepoint approximation technique. Comprehensive simulation studies are carried out to appraise the accuracy of the saddlepoint approximation. This approximation exhibits a significant improvement in precision over the asymptotic approximation. This precision motivates us to determine the approximated confidence intervals for the treatment impact.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability

Sample size calculation for the augmented logrank test in randomized clinical trials

On sample size determination for restricted mean survival time-based tests in randomized clinical trials

Sample size calculation of clinical trials in geriatric medicine

Sample size estimation for cancer randomized trials in the presence of heterogeneous populations

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

Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two-arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two‐arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Sample size estimation for modified Poisson analysis of cluster randomized trials with a binary outcome

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

Sample size determination based on rank tests in clinical trials.

Using non-inferiority test of proportions in design of randomized non-inferiority trials with time-to-event endpoint with a focus on low-event-rate setting

Analysis and sample size calculation within the responder stratified exponential survival model

Saddlepoint approximation for weighted log-rank tests based on block truncated binomial design

Design of randomized clinical trials with a binary endpoint: Conditional versus unconditional analyses of a two‐by‐two table

Sample size calculation for clinical trials with correlated count measurements based on the negative binomial distribution

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

Empirical power comparison of statistical tests in contemporary phase III randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes in oncology

Optimal sample size allocation for two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints

Sample Size Calculation for Cluster Randomized Trials with Zero-inflated Count Outcomes

Robust Tests for Treatment Effect in Survival Analysis under Covariate-Adaptive Randomization

Log-rank tests for censored clustered data under generalized randomized block design: Saddlepoint approximation