ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Dual-Criterion Approach Incorporating Historical Information to Seek Accelerated Approval With Application in Time-to-Event Group Sequential Trials.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The urgency of delivering novel, effective treatments against life-threatening diseases has brought various health authorities to allow for Accelerated Approvals (AAs). AA is the "fast track" program where promising treatments are evaluated based on surrogate (short term) endpoints likely to predict clinical benefit. This allows treatments to get an early approval, subject to providing further evidence of efficacy, for example, on the primary (long term) endpoint. Despite this procedure being quite consolidated, a number of conditionally approved treatments do not obtain full approval (FA), mainly due to lack of correlation between surrogate and primary endpoint. This implies a need to improve the criteria for controlling the risk of AAs for noneffective treatments, while maximizing the chance of AAs for effective ones. We first propose a novel adaptive group sequential design that includes an early dual-criterion "Accelerated Approval" interim analysis, where efficacy on a surrogate endpoint is tested jointly with a predictive metric based on the primary endpoint. Secondarily, we explore how the predictive criterion may be strengthened by historical information borrowing, in particular using: (i) historical control data on the primary endpoint, and (ii) the estimated historical relationship between the surrogate and the primary endpoints. We propose various metrics to characterize the risk of correct and incorrect early AAs and demonstrate how the proposed design allows explicit control of these risks, with particular attention to the family-wise error rate (FWER). The methodology is then evaluated through a simulation study motivated by a Phase-III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
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.