An Audit Strategy for Progression-Free Survival

Type: Article

Publication Date: 2011-01-06

Citations: 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01539.x

Abstract

Summary In randomized clinical trials, the use of potentially subjective endpoints has led to frequent use of blinded independent central review (BICR) and event adjudication committees to reduce possible bias in treatment effect estimators based on local evaluations (LE). In oncology trials, progression-free survival (PFS) is one such endpoint. PFS requires image interpretation to determine whether a patient's cancer has progressed, and BICR has been advocated to reduce the potential for endpoints to be biased by knowledge of treatment assignment. There is current debate, however, about the value of such reviews with time-to-event outcomes such as PFS. We propose a BICR audit strategy as an alternative to a complete-case BICR to provide assurance of the presence of a treatment effect. We develop an auxiliary-variable estimator of the log-hazard ratio that is more efficient than simply using the audited (i.e., sampled) BICR data for estimation. Our estimator incorporates information from the LE on all the cases and the audited BICR cases, and is an asymptotically unbiased estimator of the log-hazard ratio from BICR. The estimator offers considerable efficiency gains that improve as the correlation between LE and BICR increases. A two-stage auditing strategy is also proposed and evaluated through simulation studies. The method is applied retrospectively to a large oncology trial that had a complete-case BICR, showing the potential for efficiency improvements.

Locations

  • PubMed Central - View
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) - View - PDF
  • PubMed - View
  • Biometrics - View

Similar Works

Action Title Year Authors
+ An audit strategy for time-to-event outcomes measured with error: Application to five randomized controlled trials in oncology 2013 Lori E. Dodd
Edward L. Korn
Boris Freidlin
Wenjuan Gu
Jeffrey S. Abrams
William D. Bushnell
Renzo Canetta
James H. Doroshow
Robert J. Gray
Rajeshwari Sridhara
+ PDF Chat Assessment of Audit Methodologies for Bias Evaluation of Tumor Progression in Oncology Clinical Trials 2013 Jenny J. Zhang
Lijun Zhang
Huanyu Chen
Anthony J. Murgo
Lori E. Dodd
Richard Pazdur
Rajeshwari Sridhara
+ Data from: Testing of Evaluation Bias for Progression Free Survival Endpoint in Oncology Clinical Trials 2016 Yan Sun
Wenting Wu
Daniel J. Sargent
+ PDF Chat Blinded Independent Central Review of Progression-Free Survival in Phase III Clinical Trials: Important Design Element or Unnecessary Expense? 2008 Lori E. Dodd
Edward L. Korn
Boris Freidlin
C. Carl Jaffe
Larry Rubinstein
Janet Dancey
Margaret Mooney
+ PDF Chat Model free audit methodology for bias evaluation of tumour progression in oncology 2015 Andrew Stone
Euan Macpherson
Ann Smith
Christopher Jennison
+ Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials 2016 Yan Sun
Wenting Wu
Daniel J. Sargent
+ A Simulation Study to Evaluate Accuracy and Precision of Blinded Independent Central Reviews of Progression-free Survival in Cancer Clinical Trials 2013 Vincent Girardi
+ PDF Chat Appropriate statistical methods are available to handle biases encountered in blinded, independent, central review (BICR) determined progression-free survival 2019 Jessica A. Lavery
Katherine S. Panageas
+ PDF Chat Challenges, Complexities, and Considerations in the Design and Interpretation of Late-Phase Oncology Trials 2023 Timothy A. Lin
Alexander D. Sherry
Ethan B. Ludmir
+ PDF Chat Role of Sensitivity Analyses in Assessing Progression-Free Survival in Late-Stage Oncology Trials 2009 Suman Bhattacharya
Gwen Fyfe
Robert J. Gray
Daniel J. Sargent
+ PDF Chat Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: STEEP Version 2.0 2021 Sara M. Tolaney
Elizabeth Garrett‐Mayer
Julia White
Victoria Blinder
Jared C. Foster
Laleh Amiri‐Kordestani
E. Shelley Hwang
Judith M. Bliss
Eileen Rakovitch
Jane Perlmutter
+ PDF Chat "6 choose 4": A framework to understand and facilitate discussion of strategies for overall survival safety monitoring 2024 Godwin Yung
Kaspar Rufibach
Marcel Wolbers
Mark Yan
Jue Wang
+ PDF Chat A cautious use of auxiliary outcomes for decision-making in randomized clinical trials 2025 Massimiliano Russo
Steffen Ventz
Lorenzo Trippa
+ How is retrospective independent review influenced by investigator‐introduced informative censoring: A quantitative approach 2011 Frank Fleischer
Birgit Gaschler‐Markefski
Erich Bluhmki
+ PDF Chat Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed 2023 Anushka Walia
Jordan Tuia
Vinay Prasad
+ Why effect sizes are systematically larger for progression-free survival than overall survival in cancer drug trials: prognostic scores as a way forward 2024 Luca Locher
Miquel Serra‐Burriel
Dario Trapani
Emanuel Nussli
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger
+ Proposal for the Use of Progression-Free Survival in Unblinded Randomized Trials 2007 Boris Freidlin
Edward L. Korn
Sally Hunsberger
Robert J. Gray
Scott Saxman
Jo Anne Zujewski
+ Three-outcome designs for external pilot trials with progression criteria 2024 Duncan T. Wilson
Eleanor Hudson
Sarah Brown
+ Improving Collection and Analysis of Overall Survival Data 2024 Lisa R. Rodriguez
Nicole Gormley
Ruixiao Lu
Anup Amatya
George D. Demetri
Keith T. Flaherty
Ruben A. Mesa
Richard Pazdur
Mikkael A. Sekeres
Minghua Shan
+ PDF Chat Composite event-free-survival as an endpoint in oncology drug evaluation: Review and guidance perspectives from the Haute AutoritĂ© de SantĂ© (HAS) 2024 Étienne LenglinĂ©
Joachim Baba
Paul de Boissieu
Alexandre Beaufils
Alice Desbiolles
Thierno Diatta
Pierre Cochat
Sylvie Chevret

Works That Cite This (17)

Action Title Year Authors
+ Errors in multiple variables in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cohort and electronic health record data: statistical challenges and opportunities 2020 Bryan E. Shepherd
Pamela A. Shaw
+ PDF Chat Parameter estimation in Cox models with missing failure indicators and the OPPERA study 2015 Naomi C. Brownstein
Jianwen Cai
Gary D. Slade
Eric Bair
+ The European Medicines Agency: An Overview of Its Mission, Responsibilities, and Recent Initiatives in Cancer Drug Regulation 2011 Francesco Pignatti
Iordanis Gravanis
Ralf Herold
Spiros Vamvakas
Bertil Jönsson
M.L. Marty
+ Testing of evaluation bias for progression free survival endpoint in oncology clinical trials 2016 Yan Sun
Wenting Wu
Daniel J. Sargent
+ PDF Chat Model free audit methodology for bias evaluation of tumour progression in oncology 2015 Andrew Stone
Euan Macpherson
Ann Smith
Christopher Jennison
+ End points in lung cancer clinical trials: are we ready to step away from overall survival? 2013 Sumithra J. Mandrekar
+ PDF Chat Response assessment in lymphoma: Concordance between independent central review and local evaluation in a clinical trial setting 2016 Ajay K. Gopal
Barbara Pro
Joseph M. Connors
Anas Younes
Andreas Engert
Andrei R. Shustov
Xuedong Chi
Emily K. Larsen
Dana A. Kennedy
Eric L. Sievers
+ PDF Chat Missing Data and Measurement Variability in Assessing Progression-Free Survival Endpoint in Randomized Clinical Trials 2013 Rajeshwari Sridhara
Sumithra J. Mandrekar
Lori E. Dodd
+ An audit strategy for time-to-event outcomes measured with error: Application to five randomized controlled trials in oncology 2013 Lori E. Dodd
Edward L. Korn
Boris Freidlin
Wenjuan Gu
Jeffrey S. Abrams
William D. Bushnell
Renzo Canetta
James H. Doroshow
Robert J. Gray
Rajeshwari Sridhara
+ Clinical Trial Designs in Oncology 2020 Edward L. Korn
Boris Freidlin