Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42853010›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Group Sequential Sample Size for Comparing Two Survival Probabilities at a Specific Time Point.

Susan Halabi, Lu Liu, Chenxi Yu, Yuan Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Susan HalabiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4135-2777
Lu LiuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Chenxi YuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3452-9095
Yuan WuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-555X

Funding

Clinical genomic predictive model of first line androgen receptor inhibitor therapy outcomes in men with mCRPCR01CA256157 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ARMSTRONG, ANDREW J, DEHM, SCOTT M. · 2020 to 2025
$3.2M
Interactions of Androgen Production, Uptake and Metabolism on outcome in Castration Resistant Prostate CancerR01CA249279 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI HALABI, SUSAN, SHARIFI, NIMA · 2021 to 2024
$2.1M
Sieve based full likelihood approach for the Cox proportional hazards model with applications to immunotherapies trialsR21CA263950 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HALABI, SUSAN, WU, YUAN · 2023 to 2024
$405k
Department of Defense Medical Research and Materiel Command HT9425-23-1-0393Department of Defense Medical Research and Materiel Command HT9425-25-1-0623FDA HHS U01 FD007857FDA HHS U01FD007857NCI NIH HHS R01 CA249279NCI NIH HHS R01 CA256157NCI NIH HHS R21 CA263950Prostate Cancer Foundation 18CHAL02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose a novel method that simultaneously determines the sample size for testing two survival probabilities at a pre-specified time while guaranteeing Type I error control in both fixed and group-sequential trial designs. Simulations across varying hypothesized differences, failure distributions, censoring proportions, and nominal powers demonstrate consistent performance, while interim analyses highlight maintained nominal Type I error control and increased power at each look relative to the standard binomial approach, regardless of the underlying failure time distribution or spending function. Importantly, our method is especially useful for evaluating survival outcomes at a fixed time in randomized trials where one treatment arm includes neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery while the other involves surgery alone. Furthermore, it is advantageous when the proportional hazards assumption is not satisfied, as often occurs in immunotherapy trials with delayed or time-varying treatment effects or crossing survival curves. The method is also applicable to randomized Phase II trials, where smaller sample sizes and the use of intermediate or surrogate time-to-event endpoints demand efficient data use and robust error control. We illustrate the approach with motivating examples in renal and prostate cancer. An accompanying R Shiny application enables investigators to compute sample sizes interactively, facilitating practical trial planning in diverse settings.

Indexed as

Sample SizeSurvival AnalysisComputer SimulationHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleProportional Hazards ModelsProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designbinomial testfixed designLan‐DeMets spending functionlandmark timeO'Brien‐Flemingrandomized trialsurvival outcome

Identifiers

PMID42853010
PMCPMC13670043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.