DOCSLIB.ORG

Deviation from the Proportional Hazards Assumption in Randomized Phase 3 Clinical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deviation from the Proportional Hazards Assumption in Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Deviation from the Proportional Hazards Assumption in Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials in Oncology: Prevalence, Associated Factors and Implications Rifaquat Rahman1,2, Geoffrey Fell2,3, Steffen Ventz2,3,4, Andrea Arfé5, Alyssa M. Vanderbeek6, Lorenzo Trippa2,3,4*, Brian M. Alexander1,2* *Brian M. Alexander and Lorenzo Trippa contributed equally to this article as co-senior authors. Affiliations: 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Program in Regulatory Science Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Decision Sciences, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA. Corresponding Author: Brian M. Alexander, MD, MPH Harvard Medical School, Armenise 109D 1 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. 210 Longwood Ave Boston, MA 02115 Phone: 617-732-6313 Fax: 617-975-0932 [email protected] Running title: Deviations from proportional hazards in phase 3 trials Funding: This work was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Innovations in Regulatory Science Award. Potential Conflicts of interest: Brian Alexander reports personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol- Myers Squibb, Precision Health Economics, and Schlesinger Associates. Brian Alexander reports employment at Foundation Medicine, Inc. Abstract word count: 247 Manuscript body text word count: 3,295 Total Number of Tables & Figures: 5 Keywords: Survival analysis, trial efficiency, proportional hazards, hazard ratio, treatment effect 2 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Statement of Translational Relevance Deviation from proportional hazards (DPH), which occurs when a treatment exhibits variation of treatment effect over time, may be more prevalent in modern trials and can lead to under- powered clinical trials or misleading conclusions. We used reconstructed individual patient-level data from published clinical trials in recent phase III oncology clinical trials in breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancer to investigate the prevalence of DPH, its associated factors across different clinical settings and its implications. A notable proportion of published clinical trials in oncology exhibited evidence of DPH, particularly in trials testing immunotherapy agents and analyses of non-survival endpoints. In re-analyzing immunotherapy trials, the use of alternative statistical approaches allowed for more efficient clinical trials requiring fewer patients relative to conventional trial design. Alternative statistical methods, without the proportional hazards assumptions, should be considered in the design and analysis of clinical trials in settings where DPH occurs more frequently. 3 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Abstract Purpose: Deviations from proportional hazards (DPH), which may be more prevalent in the era of precision medicine and immunotherapy, can lead to under-powered trials or misleading conclusions. We used a meta-analytic approach to estimate DPH 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 pre-selected list of journals between 2014-2016 and extracted individual patient-level data (IPLD) from Kaplan-Meier curves. We re-analyzed IPLD to identify DPH. 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. Results: From 152 trials, we obtained IPLD on 129,401 patients. Among 304 Kaplan-Meier figures, 75 (24.7%) exhibited evidence of DPH, including 8 of 14 (57%) KM pairs from immunotherapy trials. Trial type (immunotherapy, odds ratio (OR) 4.29, 95%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 DPH. In immunotherapy trials, alternative statistical approaches allowed for more efficient clinical trials with fewer patients (up to 74% reduction) relative to log-rank testing. 4 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Conclusions: DPH was 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 DPH is high. 5 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Introduction Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play an essential role in therapeutic development and clinical decision making. Standard clinical trial designs, summary statistics, and analytic procedures based on proportional hazards (PH) assumptions work well when the treatment effects are constant over time. Deviations from proportional hazards (DPH) occur when treatments exhibit variation of treatment effects (hazard ratio) over time. Time-varying treatment effects are increasingly recognized in modern trials (1). Understanding the characteristics and degree of time-varying treatment effects in oncology clinical trials has implications for design, analysis, and interpretability of trials, and may ultimately lead to improvements in the testing of therapies. In this context, the use of statistical models that poorly represent the true underlying time-varying treatment effect can constitute a substantial obstacle to therapeutic development. Time-varying treatment effects are one example of treatment effect heterogeneity that may be induced by several factors. Immuno-oncology (IO) trials have shown evidence of possible delayed treatment effects (1,2). Subgroups of patients with different responses to a given therapy can also manifest as a treatment effect that is not constant over time (3). Time- varying treatment effects, which define DPH, indicates that the hazard ratio (HR) varies over 6 Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 24, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on July 25, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3999 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. time after randomization. With DPH, estimates of treatment effects from PH models may not be interpretable (4). The widely used log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are not optimal in terms of power when DPH is present and render sample size calculations, subsequent results and their interpretation questionable (5,6). A better understanding of the prevalence of DPH, along with factors that increase the likelihood of DPH, could substantially improve the therapeutic development process by anticipating DPH and suggesting appropriate alternative trial designs. We evaluate whether the PH model -assumed in the vast majority of oncology trials (7) – is representative of modern RCT data. We use reconstructed individual patient-level data (IPLD) (8) from published clinical trials to investigate DPH in recent phase III oncology clinical trials. We illustrate the magnitude of DPH and types of time-varying treatment effects observed across different clinical settings (IO, hormonal therapies, chemotherapies, etc.), and identify associated factors. This information can be utilized to evaluate if alternative statistical methodologies, instead of a standard PH analysis, should be considered in a given context for the design of future studies. We then evaluate alternative procedures for testing treatment effects and demonstrate how data from completed clinical trials can be used to evaluate operating characteristics
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Challenging Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Part 4 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials
    Challenging Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Part 4 of a 4-part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials Brief title: Challenges in Trial Design Stuart J. Pocock, PHD,* Tim C. Clayton, MSC,* Gregg W. Stone, MD† From the: *London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; †Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York <COR> Reprint requests and correspondence: Prof. Stuart J. Pocock, Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 20 7927 2413 Fax: +44 20 7637 2853 E-mail: [email protected] Disclosures: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this paper. 1 Abstract As a sequel to last week’s article on the fundamentals of clinical trial design, this article tackles related controversial issues: noninferiority trials; the value of factorial designs; the importance and challenges of strategy trials; Data Monitoring Committees (including when to stop a trial early); and the role of adaptive designs. All topics are illustrated by relevant examples from cardiology trials. <KW>Key words: Noninferiority trials; Factorial designs; Strategy trials, Data Monitoring Committees; Statistical stopping guidelines; Adaptive designs; Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic; Abbreviations ACS = acute coronary syndrome CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CI = confidence interval CV = cardiovascular DMC = Data Monitoring Committee FDA = Food and Drug Administration MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event OMT = optimal medical therapy PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention 2 Introduction Randomized controlled trials are the cornerstone of clinical guidelines informing best therapeutic practices, however their design and interpretation may be complex and nuanced.
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Analysis: Part I — Analysis Korean Journal of Anesthesiology of Time-To-Event
    Statistical Round pISSN 2005-6419 • eISSN 2005-7563 KJA Survival analysis: Part I — analysis Korean Journal of Anesthesiology of time-to-event Junyong In1 and Dong Kyu Lee2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 1Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, 2Guro Hospital, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea Length of time is a variable often encountered during data analysis. Survival analysis provides simple, intuitive results concerning time-to-event for events of interest, which are not confined to death. This review introduces methods of ana- lyzing time-to-event. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model- ing method are described with examples of hypothetical data. Keywords: Censored data; Cox regression; Hazard ratio; Kaplan-Meier method; Log-rank test; Medical statistics; Power analysis; Proportional hazards; Sample size; Survival analysis. Introduction mation of the time [2]. The Korean Journal of Anesthesiology has thus far published In a clinical trial or clinical study, an investigational treat- several papers using survival analysis for clinical outcomes: a ment is administered to subjects, and the resulting outcome data comparison of 90-day survival rate for pressure ulcer develop- are collected and analyzed after a certain period of time. Most ment or non-development after surgery under general anesthesia statistical analysis methods do not include the length of time [3], a comparison of postoperative 5-year recurrence rate in as a variable, and analysis is made only on the trial outcomes patients with breast cancer depending on the type of anesthetic upon completion of the study period, as specified in the study agent used [4], and a comparison of airway intubation success protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • Logrank Tests (Freedman)
    PASS Sample Size Software NCSS.com Chapter 702 Logrank Tests (Freedman) Introduction This module allows the sample size and power of the logrank test to be analyzed under the assumption of proportional hazards. Time periods are not stated. Rather, it is assumed that enough time elapses to allow for a reasonable proportion of responses to occur. If you want to study the impact of accrual and follow-up time, you should use the one of the other logrank modules available in PASS. The formulas used in this module come from Machin et al. (2018). They are also given in Fayers and Machin (2016) where they are applied to sizing quality of life studies. They were originally published in Freedman (1982) and are often referred to by that name. A clinical trial is often employed to test the equality of survival distributions for two treatment groups. For example, a researcher might wish to determine if Beta-Blocker A enhances the survival of newly diagnosed myocardial infarction patients over that of the standard Beta-Blocker B. The question being considered is whether the pattern of survival is different. The two-sample t-test is not appropriate for two reasons. First, the data consist of the length of survival (time to failure), which is often highly skewed, so the usual normality assumption cannot be validated. Second, since the purpose of the treatment is to increase survival time, it is likely (and desirable) that some of the individuals in the study will survive longer than the planned duration of the study. The survival times of these individuals are then unobservable and are said to be censored.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineating Virulence of Vibrio Campbellii
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Delineating virulence of Vibrio campbellii: a predominant luminescent bacterial pathogen in Indian shrimp hatcheries Sujeet Kumar1*, Chandra Bhushan Kumar1,2, Vidya Rajendran1, Nishawlini Abishaw1, P. S. Shyne Anand1, S. Kannapan1, Viswas K. Nagaleekar3, K. K. Vijayan1 & S. V. Alavandi1 Luminescent vibriosis is a major bacterial disease in shrimp hatcheries and causes up to 100% mortality in larval stages of penaeid shrimps. We investigated the virulence factors and genetic identity of 29 luminescent Vibrio isolates from Indian shrimp hatcheries and farms, which were earlier presumed as Vibrio harveyi. Haemolysin gene-based species-specifc multiplex PCR and phylogenetic analysis of rpoD and toxR identifed all the isolates as V. campbellii. The gene-specifc PCR revealed the presence of virulence markers involved in quorum sensing (luxM, luxS, cqsA), motility (faA, lafA), toxin (hly, chiA, serine protease, metalloprotease), and virulence regulators (toxR, luxR) in all the isolates. The deduced amino acid sequence analysis of virulence regulator ToxR suggested four variants, namely A123Q150 (AQ; 18.9%), P123Q150 (PQ; 54.1%), A123P150 (AP; 21.6%), and P123P150 (PP; 5.4% isolates) based on amino acid at 123rd (proline or alanine) and 150th (glutamine or proline) positions. A signifcantly higher level of the quorum-sensing signal, autoinducer-2 (AI-2, p = 2.2e−12), and signifcantly reduced protease activity (p = 1.6e−07) were recorded in AP variant, whereas an inverse trend was noticed in the Q150 variants AQ and PQ. The pathogenicity study in Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei juveniles revealed that all the isolates of AQ were highly pathogenic with Cox proportional hazard ratio 15.1 to 32.4 compared to P150 variants; PP (5.4 to 6.3) or AP (7.3 to 14).
    [Show full text]
  • Randomization-Based Test for Censored Outcomes: a New Look at the Logrank Test
    Randomization-based Test for Censored Outcomes: A New Look at the Logrank Test Xinran Li and Dylan S. Small ∗ Abstract Two-sample tests have been one of the most classical topics in statistics with wide appli- cation even in cutting edge applications. There are at least two modes of inference used to justify the two-sample tests. One is usual superpopulation inference assuming the units are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) samples from some superpopulation; the other is finite population inference that relies on the random assignments of units into different groups. When randomization is actually implemented, the latter has the advantage of avoiding distribu- tional assumptions on the outcomes. In this paper, we will focus on finite population inference for censored outcomes, which has been less explored in the literature. Moreover, we allow the censoring time to depend on treatment assignment, under which exact permutation inference is unachievable. We find that, surprisingly, the usual logrank test can also be justified by ran- domization. Specifically, under a Bernoulli randomized experiment with non-informative i.i.d. censoring within each treatment arm, the logrank test is asymptotically valid for testing Fisher's null hypothesis of no treatment effect on any unit. Moreover, the asymptotic validity of the lo- grank test does not require any distributional assumption on the potential event times. We further extend the theory to the stratified logrank test, which is useful for randomized blocked designs and when censoring mechanisms vary across strata. In sum, the developed theory for the logrank test from finite population inference supplements its classical theory from usual superpopulation inference, and helps provide a broader justification for the logrank test.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Comparisons
    Making comparisons • Previous sessions looked at how to describe a single group of subjects • However, we are often interested in comparing two groups Data can be interpreted using the following fundamental questions: • Is there a difference? Examine the effect size • How big is it? • What are the implications of conducting the study on a sample of people (confidence interval) • Is the effect real? Could the observed effect size be a chance finding in this particular study? (p-values or statistical significance) • Are the results clinically important? 1 Effect size • A single quantitative summary measure used to interpret research data, and communicate the results more easily • It is obtained by comparing an outcome measure between two or more groups of people (or other object) • Types of effect sizes, and how they are analysed, depend on the type of outcome measure used: – Counting people (i.e. categorical data) – Taking measurements on people (i.e. continuous data) – Time-to-event data Example Aim: • Is Ventolin effective in treating asthma? Design: • Randomised clinical trial • 100 micrograms vs placebo, both delivered by an inhaler Outcome measures: • Whether patients had a severe exacerbation or not • Number of episode-free days per patient (defined as days with no symptoms and no use of rescue medication during one year) 2 Main results proportion of patients Mean No. of episode- No. of Treatment group with severe free days during the patients exacerbation year GROUP A 210 0.30 (63/210) 187 Ventolin GROUP B placebo 213 0.40 (85/213)
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Analysis Using a 5‐Step Stratified Testing and Amalgamation
    Received: 13 March 2020 Revised: 25 June 2020 Accepted: 24 August 2020 DOI: 10.1002/sim.8750 RESEARCH ARTICLE Survival analysis using a 5-step stratified testing and amalgamation routine (5-STAR) in randomized clinical trials Devan V. Mehrotra Rachel Marceau West Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, Randomized clinical trials are often designed to assess whether a test treatment Pennsylvania, USA prolongs survival relative to a control treatment. Increased patient heterogene- ity, while desirable for generalizability of results, can weaken the ability of Correspondence Devan V. Mehrotra, Biostatistics and common statistical approaches to detect treatment differences, potentially ham- Research Decision Sciences, Merck & Co., pering the regulatory approval of safe and efficacious therapies. A novel solution Inc.,NorthWales,PA,USA. Email: [email protected] to this problem is proposed. A list of baseline covariates that have the poten- tial to be prognostic for survival under either treatment is pre-specified in the analysis plan. At the analysis stage, using all observed survival times but blinded to patient-level treatment assignment, “noise” covariates are removed with elastic net Cox regression. The shortened covariate list is used by a condi- tional inference tree algorithm to segment the heterogeneous trial population into subpopulations of prognostically homogeneous patients (risk strata). After patient-level treatment unblinding, a treatment comparison is done within each formed risk stratum and stratum-level results are combined for overall statis- tical inference. The impressive power-boosting performance of our proposed 5-step stratified testing and amalgamation routine (5-STAR), relative to that of the logrank test and other common approaches that do not leverage inherently structured patient heterogeneity, is illustrated using a hypothetical and two real datasets along with simulation results.
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Biostatistics Applied Biostatistics for the Pulmonologist
    APPLIED BIOSTATISTICS FOR THE PULMONOLOGIST DR. VISHWANATH GELLA • Statistics is a way of thinking about the world and decision making-By Sir RA Fisher Why do we need statistics? • A man with one watch always knows what time it is • A man with two watches always searches to identify the correct one • A man with ten watches is always reminded of the difficu lty in measuri ng ti me Objectives • Overview of Biostatistical Terms and Concepts • Application of Statistical Tests Types of statistics • Descriptive Statistics • identify patterns • leads to hypothesis generation • Inferential Statistics • distinguish true differences from random variation • allows hypothesis testing Study design • Analytical studies Case control study(Effect to cause) Cohort study(Cause to effect) • Experimental studies Randomized controlled trials Non-randomized trials Sample size estimation • ‘Too small’ or ‘Too large’ • Sample size depends upon four critical quantities: Type I & II error stat es ( al ph a & b et a errors) , th e vari abilit y of th e d at a (S.D)2 and the effect size(d) • For two group parallel RCT with a continuous outcome - sample size(n) per group = 16(S.D)2/d2 for fixed alpha and beta values • Anti hypertensive trial- effect size= 5 mmHg, S.D of the data- 10 mm Hggp. n= 16 X 100/25= 64 patients per group in the study • Statistical packages - PASS in NCSS, n query or sample power TYPES OF DATA • Quant itat ive (“how muc h?”) or categor ica l variable(“what type?”) • QiiiblQuantitative variables 9 continuous- Blood pressure, height, weight or age 9 Discrete- No.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Survival Analysis in Practice
    machine learning & knowledge extraction Review Introduction to Survival Analysis in Practice Frank Emmert-Streib 1,2,∗ and Matthias Dehmer 3,4,5 1 Predictive Society and Data Analytics Lab, Faculty of Information Technolgy and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland 2 Institute of Biosciences and Medical Technology, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland 3 Steyr School of Management, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4400 Steyr Campus, Austria 4 Department of Biomedical Computer Science and Mechatronics, UMIT- The Health and Life Science University, 6060 Hall in Tyrol, Austria 5 College of Artificial Intelligence, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +358-50-301-5353 Received: 31 July 2019; Accepted: 2 September 2019; Published: 8 September 2019 Abstract: The modeling of time to event data is an important topic with many applications in diverse areas. The collective of methods to analyze such data are called survival analysis, event history analysis or duration analysis. Survival analysis is widely applicable because the definition of an ’event’ can be manifold and examples include death, graduation, purchase or bankruptcy. Hence, application areas range from medicine and sociology to marketing and economics. In this paper, we review the theoretical basics of survival analysis including estimators for survival and hazard functions. We discuss the Cox Proportional Hazard Model in detail and also approaches for testing the proportional hazard (PH) assumption. Furthermore, we discuss stratified Cox models for cases when the PH assumption does not hold. Our discussion is complemented with a worked example using the statistical programming language R to enable the practical application of the methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Methods & Reporting
    RESEARCH METHODS & REPORTING Interpreting and reporting clinical trials with results of borderline significance Allan Hackshaw, Amy Kirkwood Cancer Research UK and UCL Borderline significance in the primary especially if the trial is unique. It is incorrect to regard, Cancer Trials Centre, University for example, a relative risk of 0.75 with a 95% confidence College London, London W1T 4TJ end point of trials does not necessarily interval of 0.57 to 0.99 and P=0.048 as clear evidence of Correspondence to: Allan Hackshaw [email protected] mean that the intervention is not effective. an effect, but the same point estimate with a 95% confi- Accepted: 11 February 2011 Researchers and journals need to be more dence interval of 0.55 to 1.03 and P=0.07 as showing no effect, simply because one P value is just below 0.05 and Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d3340 consistent in how they report these results doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3340 the other just above. Although the issue has been raised before,2 3 it still occurs in practice. The quality of randomised clinical trials and how they P values are an error rate (like the false positive rate in are reported have improved over time, with clearer guide- medical screening). In the same way that a small P value lines on conduct and statistical analysis.1 Clinical trials does not guarantee that there is a real effect, a P value often take several years, but interpreting the results at just above 0.05 does not mean no effect.
    [Show full text]
  • DETECTION MONITORING TESTS Unified Guidance
    PART III. DETECTION MONITORING TESTS Unified Guidance PART III. DETECTION MONITORING TESTS This third part of the Unified Guidance presents core procedures recommended for formal detection monitoring at RCRA-regulated facilities. Chapter 16 describes two-sample tests appropriate for some small facilities, facilities in interim status, or for periodic updating of background data. These tests include two varieties of the t-test and two non-parametric versions-- the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Tarone-Ware procedures. Chapter 17 discusses one-way analysis of variance [ANOVA], tolerance limits, and the application of trend tests during detection monitoring. Chapter 18 is a primer on several kinds of prediction limits, which are combined with retesting strategies in Chapter 19 to address the statistical necessity of performing multiple comparisons during RCRA statistical evaluations. Retesting is also discussed in Chapter 20, which presents control charts as an alternative to prediction limits. As discussed in Section 7.5, any of these detection-level tests may also be applied to compliance/assessment and corrective action monitoring, where a background groundwater protection standard [GWPS] is defined as a critical limit using two- or multiple-sample comparison tests. Caveats and limitations discussed for detection monitoring tests are also relevant to this situation. To maintain continuity of presentation, this additional application is presumed but not repeated in the following specific test and procedure discussions. Although other users and programs may find these statistical tests of benefit due to their wider applicability to other environmental media and types of data, the methods described in Parts III and IV are primarily tailored to the RCRA setting and designed to address formal RCRA monitoring requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Comparison of Two (K) Samples K=2 Problem: Compare the Survival Distributions Between Two Groups
    4. Comparison of Two (K) Samples K=2 Problem: compare the survival distributions between two groups. Ex: comparing treatments on patients with a particular disease. 푍: Treatment indicator, i.e. 푍 = 1 for treatment 1 (new treatment); 푍 = 0 for treatment 0 (standard treatment or placebo) Null Hypothesis: H0: no treatment (group) difference H0: 푆0 푡 = 푆1 푡 , for 푡 ≥ 0 H0: 휆0 푡 = 휆1 푡 , for 푡 ≥ 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Ha: the survival time for one treatment is stochastically larger or smaller than the survival time for the other treatment. Ha: 푆1 푡 ≥ 푆0 푡 , for 푡 ≥ 0 with strict inequality for some 푡 (one-sided) Ha: either 푆1 푡 ≥ 푆0 푡 , or 푆0 푡 ≥ 푆1 푡 , for 푡 ≥ 0 with strict inequality for some 푡 Solution: In biomedical applications, it has become common practice to use nonparametric tests; that is, using test statistics whose distribution under the null hypothesis does not depend on specific parametric assumptions on the shape of the probability distribution. With censored survival data, the class of weighted logrank tests are mostly used, with the logrank test being the most commonly used. Notations A sample of triplets 푋푖, Δ푖, 푍푖 , 푖 = 1, 2, … , 푛, where 1 푛푒푤 푡푟푒푎푡푚푒푛푡 푋푖 = min(푇푖, 퐶푖) Δ푖 = 퐼 푇푖 ≤ 퐶푖 푍 = ቊ 푖 0 푠푡푎푛푑푎푟푑 푇푟푒푎푡푚푒푛푡 푇푖 = latent failure time; 퐶푖 = latent censoring time Also, define, 푛 푛1 = number of individuals in group 1 푛푗 = ෍ 퐼(푍푗 = 푗) , 푗 = 0, 1 푛0 = number of individuals in group 0 푖=1 푛 = 푛0 + 푛1 푛 푌1(푥) = number of individuals at risk at time 푥 from trt 1 = σ푖=1 퐼(푋푖 ≥ 푥, 푍푖 = 1) 푛 푌0(푥) = number of individuals at risk at time 푥 from trt 0 = σ푖=1 퐼(푋푖 ≥ 푥, 푍푖 = 0) 푌(푥) = 푌0(푥) + 푌1(푥) 푛 푑푁1(푥) = # of deaths observed at time 푥 from trt 1 = σ푖=1 퐼(푋푖 = 푥, Δ푖 = 1, 푍푖 = 1) 푛 푑푁0(푥) = # of deaths observed at time 푥 from trt 0 = σ푖=1 퐼(푋푖 = 푥, Δ푖 = 1, 푍푖 = 0) 푛 푑푁 푥 = 푑푁0 푥 + 푑푁1 푥 = σ푖=1 퐼(푋푖 = 푥, Δ푖 = 1) Note: 푑푁 푥 actually correspond to the observed number of deaths in time window 푥, 푥 + Δ푥 for some partition of the time axis into intervals of length Δ푥.
    [Show full text]