Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39686703›Full record

ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025

Oncology Clinical Trial Design Planning Based on a Multistate Model That Jointly Models Progression-Free and Overall Survival Endpoints.

Alexandra Erdmann, Jan Beyersmann, Kaspar Rufibach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Alexandra ErdmannInstitute of Statistics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8582-9664
Jan BeyersmannInstitute of Statistics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3793-4611
Kaspar RufibachProduct Development Data Sciences, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

German Research Foundation BE 4500/4-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When planning an oncology clinical trial, the usual approach is to assume proportional hazards and even an exponential distribution for time-to-event endpoints. Often, besides the gold-standard endpoint overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) is considered as a second confirmatory endpoint. We use a survival multistate model to jointly model these two endpoints and find that neither exponential distribution nor proportional hazards will typically hold for both endpoints simultaneously. The multistate model provides a stochastic process approach to model the dependency of such endpoints neither requiring latent failure times nor explicit dependency modeling such as copulae. We use the multistate model framework to simulate clinical trials with endpoints OS and PFS and show how design planning questions can be answered using this approach. In particular, nonproportional hazards for at least one of the endpoints are a consequence of OS and PFS being dependent and are naturally modeled to improve planning. We then illustrate how clinical trial design can be based on simulations from a multistate model. Key applications are coprimary endpoints and group-sequential designs. Simulations for these applications show that the standard simplifying approach may very well lead to underpowered or overpowered clinical trials. Our approach is quite general and can be extended to more complex trial designs, further endpoints, and other therapeutic areas. An R package is available on CRAN.

Indexed as

BiometryClinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationModels, StatisticalProgression-Free SurvivalHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsResearch DesignSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID39686703
PMCPMC11650109

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.