1 / 34

Two-Stage Treatment Strategies Based On Sequential Failure Times

Two-Stage Treatment Strategies Based On Sequential Failure Times. Peter F. Thall Biostatistics Department Univ. of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Designed Experiments: Recent Advances in Methods and Applications Cambridge, England August 2008. Joint work with Leiko Wooten, PhD

plisa
Download Presentation

Two-Stage Treatment Strategies Based On Sequential Failure Times

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Two-Stage Treatment Strategies Based On Sequential Failure Times Peter F. Thall Biostatistics Department Univ. of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Designed Experiments: Recent Advances in Methods and Applications Cambridge, England August 2008

  2. Joint work with Leiko Wooten, PhD Chris Logothetis, MD Randy Millikan, MD Nizar Tannir, MD The basis for a multi-center trial comparing 2-stage strategies for Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

  3. A Metastatic Renal Cancer Trial • Entry Criteria: Patients withMetastatic Renal Cell Cancer (MRCC) who have not had previous systemic therapy • Standard treatments are ineffective, with median(DFS) approximately 8 months  Three “targeted” treatments will be studied in 240 MRCC patients, using a two-stage within-patient Dynamic Treatment Regime

  4. A Within-Patient Two-Stage Treatment Assignment Algorithm (Dynamic Treatment Regime) Stage1 At entry, randomize the patient among the stage 1 treatment pool {A1,…,Ak} Stage 2 If the 1st failure is disease worsening (progression of MRCC) & not discontinuation, re-randomize the patient among a set of treatments {B1,…,Bn} not received initially “Switch-Away From a Loser”

  5. Frontline Salvage Strategy A B C • B = (A, B) • C = (A, C) • A = (B, A) • C = (B, C) • A = (C, A) • B = (C, B)

  6. Selection Trials: Screening New Treatments - Randomize patients among experimental treatment regimes E1,…, Ek - Evaluate each patient’s outcome(s) - Select the “best” treatment E[k] that maximizes a summary statistic quantifying treatment benefit A selection design does not test hypotheses It does not detect a given improvement over a null value with given test size and power E.g. with k=3, in the “null” case where q1 = q2 = q3 each Ej is selected with probability .33 (not .05 or some smaller value)

  7. Goal of the Renal Cancer Trial Select the two-stage strategy having the largest “average” time to second treatment failure (“overall failure time”) With 6 strategies: In the “null” case where all strategies give the same overall failure time, each strategy is selected with probability 1/6 = .166

  8. Higher Mathematics Stage1 treatment pool = {A1,…,Ak} Stage 2 treatment pool = {B1,…,Bn}  kxn = # possible 2-stage strategies N/k = effective sample size to estimate each frontline rx effect N/(kn) = effective sample size to estimate each two-stage strategy effect

  9. Higher Mathematics Example : If k=3, n=3 with “switch-away” within patient rule, and N=240  2x3 = 6 = # possible 2-stage strategies 240/3 = 80 = effective sample size to estimate each frontline rx effect 240/6 = 40 = effective sample size to estimate each two-stage strategy effect

  10. Outcomes TD = time of discontinuation S1 = time from start of stage 1 of therapy of 1st disease worsening S2 = time from start of stage 2 of therapy to 2nd treatment failure d = delay between 1st progression and start of 2nd stage of treatment

  11. Outcomes T1 = Time to 1st treatment failure T2 = Time from 1st disease worsening to 2nd treatment failure T1 + T2 = Time of 2nd treatment failure (provided that the 1st failure was not a discontinuation)

  12. Unavoidable Complications Because disease is evaluated repeatedly (MRI, PET),either T1 or T1 + T2may be interval censored There may be a delay between 1st failure and start of stage 2 therapy T1 may affect T2 The failure rates may change over time (they increase for MRC)

  13. Delay before start of 2nd stage rx Discontinuation Start of stage 2 rx

  14. T2,1 = Time from 1st progression to 2nd treatment failure if it occurs during the delay interval before stage 2 therapy is begun T2,2 = Time from 1st progression to 2nd treatment failure if it occurs after stage 2 therapy has begun

  15. A Simple Parametric Model Weib(a,x) = Weibull distribution with meanm(a,x) = ea G(1+e-x), for real-valued a and x [ T1 | A ] ~ Weib(aA,xA) [ T2,1 | A,B, T1] ~ Exp{ gA+bA log(T1) } [ T2,2 | A,B, T1] ~ Weib( gA,B+bA log(T1), xA,B)

  16. Mean Overall Failure Time T = T1 + Y1,W T2 mA,B(q) = E{ T| (A,B)} = E(T1) + Pr(Y1,W =1) E(T2) Mean time to 1st failure Pr(1st failure is a Disease Worsening) Mean time to 2nd failure

  17. Criteria for Choosing a Best Strategy Mean{ mA,B(q) | data }: B-Weib-Mean 2. Median{ mA,B(q) | data }: B-Weib-Median 3. MLE of mA,B(q) under simple Exponential: F-Exp-MLE 4. MLE of mA,B(q) under full Weibull: F-Weib-MLE

  18. A Tale of Four Designs Design 1 (February 21, 2006) N=240, accrual rate a = 12/month  20 month accrual + 18 mos addt’l FU Stage 1 pool = {A,B,C,D}  12 strategies (A,B), (A,C), (A,D), (B,A), (B,C), (B,D), (C,A), (C,B), (C,D), (D,A), (D,B), (D,C) Drop-out rate .20 between stages  (240/12) x .80 = 16 patients per strategy

  19. A Tale of Four Designs Design 2 (April 17, 2006) Following “advice” from CTEP, NCI : N = 240, a = 9/month (“more realistic”) Stage 1 pool = {A,B} (C, D not allowed as frontline) Stage 2 pool = {A,B,C,D}  6 strategies : (A,B), (A,C), (A,D), (B,A), (B,C), (B,D) (240/6) x .80 = 32 patients per strategy

  20. A Tale of Four Designs An Interesting Property of Design 2 Stage 1 may be thought of as a conventional phase III trial comparing A vs B with size .05 and power .80 to detect a 50% increase in median(T1), from 8 to 12 months, embedded in the two-stage design However, the design does not aim to test hypotheses. It is a selection design.

  21. A Tale of Four Designs Design 3 (January 3, 2007) CTEP was no longer interested, but several Pharmas now VERY interested N = 360, a = 12/month, 3 new treatments Stage 1 rx pool = Stage 2 rx pool = {a,s,t}  6 strategies (different from Design 2) : (a,s), (a,t), (s,a), (s,t), (t,a), (t,s) (360/6) x .80 = 48 patients per strategy

  22. A Tale of Four Designs Design 4 (May 15, 2007) Question: Should a futility stopping rule be included, in case the accrual rate turns out to be lower than planned? Answer: Yes!! “Weeding” Rule: When 120 pats. are fully evaluated, stop accrual to strategy (a,b) if Pr{ m(a,b) < m(best) – 3 mos | data} > .90

  23. A Tale of Four Designs Applying the Weeding Rule when 120 patients have been fully evaluated 

  24. Establishing Priors q has 28 elements, but the 6 subvectors are qA,B= (n1,A, n2,A,B , aA , xA, gA, bA , aA,B , xA,B) Pr(Dis. Worsening)Reg. of T2 on T1 Weib pars of T1 Weib pars of T2 The qA,B’s are exchangeable across the 6 strategies, so they have the same priors

  25. Establishing Priors  n1,A ,n2,A,B~ iid beta(0.80, 0.20) based on clinical experience  aA , xA, gA, bA , aA,B , xA,B ~ indep. normal priors Prior means: We elicited percentiles of T1 and [ T2 | T1 = 8 mos], & applied the Thall-Cook (2004) least squares method to determine means Prior variances: We set var{exp(aA)} = var{exp(xA)} = var{exp(xA,B)} = 100 Assuming Pr(Disc. During delay period) = .02  E(mA,B) = 7.0 mos & sd(mA,B) = 12.9

  26. Computer Simulations Simulation Scenarios specified in terms of z1(A) = median (T1 | A) and z2(A,B) = median { T2,2 | T1 = 8, (A,B) } Null values z1 = 8 and z2 = 3 z1 = 12  Good frontline z2 = 6  Good salvage z2 = 9  Very good salvage

  27. Simulations: No Weeding Rule In terms of the probabilities of correctly selecting superior strategies, F-Weib-MLE ~ B-Weib-Median > B-Weib-Mean >> F-Exp-MLE

  28. Simulations: B-Weib-Median,No weeding rule

  29. Simulations: B-Weib-Median,No weeding rule

  30. Sims With Weeding Rule • Correct selection probabilities are affected only very slightly • There is a shift of patients from inferior strategies to superior strategies – but this only becomes substantial with lower accrual rates

  31. Sims With Weeding Rule(Scenario 5)

  32. Future Research / Extensions Distinguish betweendrop-out and other types of discontinuation and conduct “Informative Drop-Out” analysis Account forpatient heterogeneity Correct forselection biaswhen computing final estimates Accommodatemore than two stages

More Related