A modified weighted log-rank test for confirmatory trials with a high proportion of treatment switching

The Inverse Log-Rank Test: A Versatile Procedure for Late Separating Survival Curves

Often in the planning phase of a clinical trial, a researcher will need to choose between a standard versus weighted log-rank test (LRT) for investigating right-censored survival data. While a standard LRT is optimal for analyzing evenly distributed but distinct survival events (proportional hazards), an appropriately weighted LRT test may be better suited for handling non-proportional, delayed treatment effects. The "a priori" misspecification of this alternative may result in a substantial loss of power when determining the effectiveness of an experimental drug. In this paper, the standard unweighted and inverse log-rank tests (iLRTs) are compared with the multiple weight, default Max-Combo procedure for analyzing differential late survival outcomes. Unlike combination LRTs that depend on the arbitrary selection of weights, the iLRT by definition is a single weight test and does not require implicit multiplicity correction. Empirically, both weighted methods have reasonable flexibility for assessing continuous survival curve differences from the onset of a study. However, the iLRT may be preferable for accommodating delayed separating survival curves, especially when one arm finishes first. Using standard large-sample methods, the power and sample size for the iLRT are easily estimated without resorting to complex and timely simulations.

New Test for the Comparison of Survival Curves to Detect Late Differences

Background. Survival analysis attracted the attention of different scientists from various domains such as engineering, health, and social sciences. It has been widely exploited in clinical trials when comparing different treatments looking at their survival probabilities. Kaplan–Meier curves plotted from the Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival probabilities are used to depict the general image for such situations. Methods. The weighted log-rank test has been dealt with by suggesting different weight functions which give specific strength in specific situations. In this work, we proposed a new weight function comprising all numbers at risk, i.e., the overall number at risk and the separate numbers at risk in the groups under study, to detect late differences between survival curves. Results. The new test has been found to be a good alternative after the FH (0, 1) test in detecting late differences, and it outperformed all tests in case of small samples and heavy censoring rates according to the simulation studies. The new test kept the same strength when applied to real data where it showed itself to be among the powerful ones or even outperforms all other tests under consideration. Conclusion. As the new test stays stronger in the case of small samples and heavy censoring rates, it may be a better choice whenever targeting the detection of late differences between the survival curves.

Quantifying treatment differences in confirmatory trials under non-proportional hazards

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. With the emergence of immunotherapy and novel targeted therapies, departure from the proportional hazard assumption is not rare in nowadays clinical research. Under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio does not have a straightforward clinical interpretation, and the log-rank test is no longer the most powerful statistical test even though it is still valid. Nevertheless, the log-rank test and the hazard ratio are still the primary analysis tools, and traditional approaches such as sample size increase are still proposed to account for the impact of non-proportional hazards. The weighed log-rank test and the test based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST) are receiving a lot of attention as a potential alternative to the log-rank test. We conduct a simulation study comparing the performance and operating characteristics of the log-rank test, the weighted log-rank test and the test based on the RMST, including a treatment effect estimation, under different non-proportional hazards patterns. Results show that, under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio and weighted hazard ratio have no straightforward clinical interpretation whereas the RMST ratio can be interpreted regardless of the proportional hazards assumption. In terms of power, the RMST achieves a similar performance when compared to the log-rank test.