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.

Defining treatment effects: A regulatory perspective

Treatment Effect Quantification for Time-to-event Endpoints -- Estimands, Analysis Strategies, and beyond

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

Defining estimands in clinical trials: A unified procedure

Defining estimands using a mix of strategies to handle intercurrent events in clinical trials

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

Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on 'Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study'

Application of the estimand framework for an emulated trial using reference based multiple imputation to investigate informative censoring

Choosing Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Into Practice

Estimands in Hematologic Oncology Trials

Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach

Modern approaches for evaluating treatment effect heterogeneity from clinical trials and observational data

Defining and Estimating Intervention Effects for Groups that will Develop an Auxiliary Outcome

Meta TCT: Towards Interpretable Treatment Effects in Clinical Trials for Progressive Diseases

Direct Estimation of the Mean Outcome on Treatment when Treatment Assignment and Discontinuation Compete

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

Finding and assessing treatment effect sweet spots in clinical trial data

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Testing practical relevance of treatment effects

ASSESSING THE HETEROGENEITY OF TREATMENT EFFECTS BY IDENTIFYING THE TREATMENT BENEFIT RATE AND TREATMENT HARM RATE

Treatment Effect Measures Under Nonproportional Hazards