ArticleJournal of hepatology2026
Strategies to address non-proportional hazards between survival curves - Lessons from phase III trials in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Journal of hepatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Adjuvant Treatment Versus Surveillance in Curatively Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Trial design and end points in hepatocellular carcinoma: an EASL-AASLD-ILCA consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Neoadjuvant Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with FOLFOX Plus Tislelizumab for Resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond the Milan Criteria: Efficacy, Safety and Biomarker Exploration.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- Article
- ESMO-MCBS v2.0: Advances, challenges, and perspectives in the assessment of clinical benefit in oncology.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsNon-proportional hazards (NPH) can lead to discrepancies between interim (IA) and final analyses (FA) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the impact of NPH in pivotal HCC trials and proposed strategies for more robust analyses.
methodsPhase III pivotal HCC RCTs (2008-2024) were reviewed. Proportional hazards were tested using the Grambsch-Therneau method. For trials with NPH, we proposed an optimal IA timing (twice the estimated median of the primary endpoint in the control arm) or a minimum event threshold (≥60%). In NPH scenarios, the MaxCombo test, restricted mean survival time (rRMST), and piecewise hazard ratios were applied.
resultsNPH was present in 4/20 (20%) phase III trials in HCC, all involving immunotherapies, and displayed three patterns: 1) diminishing effects, 2) delayed effects, and 3) crossing hazards. Two RCTs (IMbrave050, LEAP-012) reported positive IA results with diminishing effects. In IMbrave050, discrepancies were observed when comparing IA and FA using MaxCombo analysis (p = 0.02 and p = 0.33, respectively), rRMST at 12 and 36 months (1.11 [p <0.001] and 1.08 [p = 0.08], respectively) and piecewise hazard ratios before vs. after 12 months (0.59 [95% CI 0.43-0.73] vs. 1.12 [95% CI 0.88-1.37]). In LEAP-012, results were consistent across 12 and 24 months (MaxCombo test p <0.001) and rRMST (1.20 [p <0.001) and 1.27 [p <0.001]). HIMALAYA and Checkmate 9DW reported positive results, which were confirmed by MaxCombo test. HIMALAYA showed delayed effects (rRMST at 12 and 36 months: 1.04 [p = 0.13] and 1.15 [p = 0.004]), while CheckMate 9DW displayed crossing hazards (rRMST at 12 and 36 months: 0.95 [p = 0.07] and 1.12 [p = 0.03]).
conclusionNPH contributed to discrepancies between IA and FA in IMbrave050. Robust IA require a minimum follow-up duration or event count before prematurely stopping RCTs in the presence of NPH. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Non-proportional hazards (NPH) impact phase III randomized controlled trials in hepatocellular carcinoma, particularly in immunotherapy trials, potentially causing discrepancies between the interim and final analyses. In fact, halting trials at the interim analysis can be premature when NPH is present. Thus, we propose a framework to ensure study maturity based on follow-up duration and event accruals to optimize interim analyses in the presence of NPH. Whenever NPH is identified, distinct statistical tools should be used to assess reliable differences between arms (MaxCombo) and to assess the effect size (restricted mean survival time and piecewise hazard ratios) for regulatory decisions and clinical guidance. Implementing these strategies can improve trial design, and better support clinical decision-making.
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.