A two-stage design for phase II trials with time-to-event endpoint using restricted follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In phase II oncology trials, the use of new cytostatic drugs raises some questions regarding the endpoint. Time-to-event endpoints such as Progression-Free Survival have been recommended and led to new designs. In 2003, Case and Morgan proposed a design based on the comparison of the cumulative hazards at a clinically relevant timepoint. In 2013, Kwak proposed a design based on the one-sample log-rank test. If all the patients are followed from their entry time to the analysis date, the Kwak and Jung's design leads to a smaller sample size as compared to the Case-Morgan's design. However, the Case and Morgan's design requires less information since it only needs to follow every patient during a fixed interval of time. We propose a trade-off between these two approaches that corresponds to an adaptation of Kwak and Jung's design when the follow-up is expected to be restricted. Our proposal is based on the one-sample log-rank test as the Kwak and Jung's design but it uses the same follow-up information as the Case-Morgan's design. Simulation study shows that our proposal allows reducing the sample size as compared to the Case-Morgan's design (median difference of 23% [15%-33%]). Type I and type II error rates are close to their nominal rates planned in the protocol. A real phase II clinical trial in cervical cancer illustrated the interest of this new design. Thus, our proposal can be recommended as an alternative to the Kwak's design when patients' follow-up is restricted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".