1. The case against censoring of progression-free survival in cancer clinical trials – A pandemic shutdown as an illustration
- Author
-
Corinne Jamoul, Laurence Collette, Elisabeth Coart, Koenraad D’Hollander, Tomasz Burzykowski, Everardo D. Saad, and Marc Buyse
- Subjects
Estimands ,Censoring ,Pandemic ,Power ,Bias ,Progression-free survival ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background Missing data may lead to loss of statistical power and introduce bias in clinical trials. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on patient health care and on the conduct of cancer clinical trials. Although several endpoints may be affected, progression-free survival (PFS) is of major concern, given its frequent use as primary endpoint in advanced cancer and the fact that missed radiographic assessments are to be expected. The recent introduction of the estimand framework creates an opportunity to define more precisely the target of estimation and ensure alignment between the scientific question and the statistical analysis. Methods We used simulations to investigate the impact of two basic approaches for handling missing tumor scans due to the pandemic: a “treatment policy” strategy, which consisted in ascribing events to the time they are observed, and a “hypothetical” approach of censoring patients with events during the shutdown period at the last assessment prior to that period. We computed the power of the logrank test, estimated hazard ratios (HR) using Cox models, and estimated median PFS times without and with a hypothetical 6-month shutdown period with no patient enrollment or tumor scans being performed, varying the shutdown starting times. Results Compared with the results in the absence of shutdown, the “treatment policy” strategy slightly overestimated median PFS proportionally to the timing of the shutdown period, but power was not affected. Except for one specific scenario, there was no impact on the estimated HR. In general, the pandemic had a greater impact on the analyses using the “hypothetical” strategy, which led to decreased power and overestimated median PFS times to a greater extent than the “treatment policy” strategy. Conclusion As a rule, we suggest that the treatment policy approach, which conforms with the intent-to-treat principle, should be the primary analysis to avoid unnecessary loss of power and minimize bias in median PFS estimates.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF