Cargando…

Cross-sectional analysis characterizing the use of rank preserving structural failure time in oncology studies: changes to hazard ratio and frequency of inappropriate use

BACKGROUND: Rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) is a statistical method to correct or adjust for crossover in clinical trials, by estimating the counterfactual effect on overall survival (OS) when control arm patients do not receive the interventional drug when their tumor progresses. We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prasad, Vinay, Kim, Myung Sun, Haslam, Alyson
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10239129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37270500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07412-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) is a statistical method to correct or adjust for crossover in clinical trials, by estimating the counterfactual effect on overall survival (OS) when control arm patients do not receive the interventional drug when their tumor progresses. We sought to examine the strength of correlation between differences in uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratios and percentage of crossover, and characterize instances of fundamental and sequential efficacy. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis (2003–2023), we reviewed oncology randomized trials that used RPSFT analysis to adjust the OS hazard ratio for patients who crossed over to an anti-cancer drug. We calculated the percentage of RPSFT studies evaluating a drug for fundamental efficacy (with or without a standard of care (SOC)) or sequential efficacy and the correlation between the OS hazard ratio difference (unadjusted and adjusted) and the percentage of crossover. RESULTS: Among 65 studies, the median difference between the uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratio was −0.1 (quartile 1, quartile 3 : −0.3 to −0.06). The median percentage of crossover was 56% (quartile 1, quartile 3: 37% to 72%). All studies were funded by the industry or had authors who were employees of the industry. Twelve studies (19%) tested a drug’s fundamental efficacy when there was no SOC; 34 studies (52%) tested a drug’s fundamental efficacy when there was already a SOC; and 19 studies (29%) tested a drug’s sequential efficacy. The correlation between the uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratio difference and the percentage of crossover was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.21 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: RPSFT is a common tactic used by the industry to reinterpret trial results. Nineteen percent of RPSFT use is appropriate. We recognize that while crossover can bias OS results, the allowance and handling of crossover in trials should be limited to appropriate circumstances. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07412-y.