Open AccessMedicineMathematics

Ray S. Lin, Ji Lin, Satrajit Roychoudhury, Keaven M. Anderson, Tianle Hu, Bo Huang, Larry F Leon, Jason JZ Liao, Rong Liu, Xiaodong Luo, Pralay Mukhopadhyay, Rui Qin, Kay Tatsuoka, Xuejing Wang, Yang Wang, Jian Zhu, Tai-Tsang Chen, Renee Iacona, Cross-Pharma Non-proportional Hazards Working Group

2019.9.20Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

DOI: 10.1080/19466315.2019.1697738

tlooto Summary

In the absence of prior knowledge regarding the underlying or non-PH patterns, the MaxCombo test is relatively robust across patterns, and multiple measures of the treatment effect should be prespecified as sensitivity analyses to describe the totality of the data.

Abstract

Abstract The log-rank test is most powerful under proportional hazards (PH). In practice, non-PH patterns are often observed in clinical trials, such as in immuno-oncology; therefore, alternative methods are needed to restore the efficiency of statistical testing. Three categories of testing methods were evaluated, including weighted log-rank tests, Kaplan–Meier curve-based tests (including weighted Kaplan–Meier and restricted mean survival time), and combination tests (including Breslow test, Lee’s combo test, and MaxCombo test). Nine scenarios representing the PH and various non-PH patterns were simulated. The power, Type I error, and effect estimate of each method were compared. In general, all tests control Type I error well. There is not a single most powerful test across all scenarios. In the absence of prior knowledge regarding the underlying or non-PH patterns, the MaxCombo test is relatively robust across patterns. Since the treatment effect changes over time under non-PH, the overall profile of the treatment effect may not be represented comprehensively based on a single measure. Thus, multiple measures of the treatment effect should be prespecified as sensitivity analyses to describe the totality of the data. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Citation format

LIN, Ray S., et al. Alternative analysis methods for time to event endpoints under non-proportional hazards: A comparative analysis [preprint]. arXiv, 2019. arXiv:1909.09467.