Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35838646›Full record

ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2022

Statistical Considerations for Analyses of Time-To-Event Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials: Illustrations with CAR-T Immunotherapy Studies.

Yimei Li, Wei-Ting Hwang, Shannon L Maude, David T Teachey, Noelle V Frey, Regina M Myers, Allison Barz Leahy, Hongyan Liu, David L Porter, Stephan A Grupp and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Poor olfaction and risk of heart failure in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Endpoint selection and evaluation in hematology studies.Best practice & research. Clinical haematology · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yimei LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-9067-6992
Wei-Ting HwangDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0003-2829-2167
Shannon L MaudeDivision of Oncology and Center for Childhood Cancer Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0003-2210-8736
David T TeacheyDivision of Oncology and Center for Childhood Cancer Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-7373-8987
Noelle V FreyDivision of Hematology Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Cell Therapy and Transplant, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0003-3688-9836
Regina M MyersDivision of Oncology and Center for Childhood Cancer Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-2542-2061
Allison Barz LeahyDivision of Oncology and Center for Childhood Cancer Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-1368-4064
Hongyan LiuDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-5308-4362
David L PorterDivision of Hematology Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Cell Therapy and Transplant, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-6333-9536
Stephan A GruppDivision of Oncology and Center for Childhood Cancer Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-8030-7595
Pamela A ShawBiostatistics Unit, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-8410

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is an exciting development in the field of cancer immunology and has received a lot of interest in recent years. Many time-to-event (TTE) endpoints related to relapse, disease progression, and remission are analyzed in CAR-T studies to assess treatment efficacy. Definitions of these TTE endpoints are not always consistent, even for the same outcomes (e.g., progression-free survival), which often stems from analysis choices regarding which events to consider as part of the composite endpoint, censoring or competing risk in the analysis. Subsequent therapies such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are common but are not treated the same in different studies. Standard survival analysis methods are commonly applied to TTE analyses but often without full consideration of the assumptions inherent in the chosen analysis. We highlight two important issues of TTE analysis that arise in CAR-T studies, as well as in other settings in oncology: the handling of competing risks and assessing the association between a time-varying (post-infusion) exposure and the TTE outcome. We review existing analytical methods, including the cumulative incidence function and regression models for analysis of competing risks, and landmark and time-varying covariate analysis for analysis of post-infusion exposures. We clarify the scientific questions that the different analytical approaches address and illustrate how the application of an inappropriate method could lead to different results using data from multiple published CAR-T studies. Codes for implementing these methods in standard statistical software are provided.

Indexed as

Immunotherapy, AdoptiveNeoplasmsReceptors, Chimeric AntigenClinical Trials as TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansT-LymphocytesReceptors, Chimeric Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35838646
PMCPMC9481718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.