Deviation from the Proportional Hazards Assumption in Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials in Oncology: Prevalence, Associated Factors, and Implications.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Deviations from proportional hazards (DPHs), which may be more prevalent in the era of precision medicine and immunotherapy, can lead to underpowered trials or misleading conclusions. We used a meta-analytic approach to estimate DPHs across cancer trials, investigate associated factors, and evaluate data-analysis approaches for future trials.Experimental Design: We searched PubMed for phase III trials in breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer published in a preselected list of journals between 2014 and 2016 and extracted individual patient-level data (IPLD) from Kaplan-Meier curves. We re-analyzed IPLD to identify DPHs. Potential efficiency gains, when DPHs were present, of alternative statistical methods relative to standard log-rank based analysis were expressed as sample-size requirements for a fixed power level. From 152 trials, we obtained IPLD on 129,401 patients. Among 304 Kaplan-Meier figures, 75 (24.7%) exhibited evidence of DPHs, including eight of 14 (57%) KM pairs from immunotherapy trials. Trial type [immunotherapy, odds ratio (OR), 4.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-16.6], metastatic patient population (OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.26-8.05), and non-OS endpoints (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.79-5.88) were associated with DPHs. In immunotherapy trials, alternative statistical approaches allowed for more efficient clinical trials with fewer patients (up to 74% reduction) relative to log-rank testing. DPHs were found in a notable proportion of time-to-event outcomes in published clinical trials in oncology and was more common for immunotherapy trials and non-OS endpoints. Alternative statistical methods, without proportional hazards assumptions, should be considered in the design and analysis of clinical trials when the likelihood of DPHs is high.