Sample size determination for the current strategy in oncology Phase 3 trials that tests progression-free survival
Shogo Nomura1,2, Akihiro Hirakawa3, Chikuma Hamada1
1a Center for Research and Administration and Support , National Cancer Center , Chiba , Japan.
Abstract:
The selection of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as the most suitable primary endpoint (PE) in oncology Phase 3 trials is currently under intense debate. Because of substantial limitations in the single use of PFS (or OS) as the PE, trial designs that include PFS and OS as co-primary endpoints are attracting increasing interest. In this article, we report on the formulation of determining the sample size for a trial that sequentially tests PFS and OS by treating them as co-PEs. Using a three-component model of OS, the proposed method overcomes the drawbacks of an existing method that requires unreasonable assumption of the exponential distribution for OS, although the hazard function is nonconstant because effective subsequent therapy has prolonged postprogression survival in recent oncology trials. Alternative estimation method of hazard ratio for OS under a three-component mode is also discussed by checking the appropriateness of assuming proportionality of hazards for OS. In order to examine the performance of our proposed method, we performed three numerical studies using both simulated and actual data of cancer Phase 3 trials. We find that the proposed method preserves a prespecified target value of power with a feasible increment of trial scale.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Introduction To Survival Analysis
The primary goal of survival analysis is to estimate survival time—the time...
Kaplan-Meier Approach


