ArticleStatistics in medicine2020
Design for immuno-oncology clinical trials enrolling both responders and nonresponders.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond hazard ratios: appropriate statistical methods for quantifying the clinical effectiveness of immune-oncology therapies - the example of the Netherlands.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A typical challenge facing the design and analysis of immuno-oncology (IO) trials is the prevalence of nonproportional hazards (NPH) patterns manifested in Kaplan-Meier curves under time-to-event endpoints. The NPH patterns would violate the proportional hazards assumption, and yet conventional design and analysis strategies often ignore such a violation, resulting in underpowered or even falsely negative IO studies. In this article, we show, both empirically and analytically, that treating nonresponders in IO studies of inadequate size would give rise to a variety of NPH patterns; we then present a novel design and analysis strategy, P%-responder information embedded (PRIME), to properly incorporate the dichotomized response incurred from treating nonresponders. Empirical studies demonstrate that the proposed strategy can achieve desirable power, whereas the conventional alternative leads to a severe power loss. The PRIME strategy allows us to quantify the impact of treating nonresponders on study efficiency, thereby enabling a proper design of IO trials with an adequate power. More importantly, it pinpoints a solution to enhance the study efficiency and alleviates the NPH patterns by enrolling more prospective responders. An R package (Immunotherapy.Design) is developed for implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.