Measurement error in the timing of events: effect on survival analyses in randomized clinical trials

Abstract

Background Presence of measurement error in the outcome can complicate the interpretation of a randomized clinical trial. The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the US Food and Drug Administration voted against recommending approval of bevacizumab for the initial treatment of metastatic breast cancer; one of their major concerns was the presence of a large amount of nondifferential measurement error in the evaluation of progression-free survival, the primary outcome of the randomized clinical trial E2100.

Purpose To investigate the effects of nondifferential measurement error in time-to-event outcomes on the conclusions of a proportional hazards analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Methods Simulations were performed showing effects of measurement error on the estimated treatment effect (hazard ratio) in a clinical trial. In some simulations, the measurement error structure from E2100 data was approximated; for other simulations, larger or smaller measurement error was considered.

Results The bias in estimating the hazard ratio was very small using measurement error and a hazard ratio similar to E2100. Even with a larger nondifferential measurement error, the bias remained small when the hazard ratio was in a range commonly seen in clinical trials. There was no or little effect on the variability of the estimated treatment effect.

Limitations Because of censoring issues, retrospective evaluation of the measurement error structure from a completed trial is difficult. Although our simulations cover a range of plausible measurement error values, in theory, a trial could have much larger measurement error than we considered. Differential measurement error is only briefly considered.

Conclusions Nondifferential measurement error due to variability in estimating time-to-event outcomes will typically not be a major concern in randomized clinical trials.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Goldberg P. Avastin vote puts focus on FDA criteria in first-line metastatic breast cancer . Cancer Lett 2007; 33: 1-6 (14 December 2007).

Anonymous. PFS is a benefit ‘In the Right Context,’ Pazdur says in Q&A on Avastin approval. Cancer Lett 2008; 34: 1-4 (29 February 2008).

Miller K. , Wang M. , Gralow J. , et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2666-76.

Gray R. , Bhattacharya S. , Bowden C. , et al. Independent review of E2100: a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4966-72.

FDA. FDA briefing document, Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4332b1-00-index.htm (accessed 18 August 2010).

FDA. Transcript of the FDA presentation to the December 5, 2007 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/AC/cder07.htm#OncologicDrugs (accessed 18 August 2010).

Carroll KJ Analysis of progression-free survival in oncology trials: some common statistical issues. Pharm Stat 2007; 6: 99-113.

Williams G. , He K. , Chen G. , et al. Operational bias in assessing time to progression (TTP). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 244(abstr 975).

Pangeas KS , Ben-Porat L. , Dickler MN , et al. When you look matters: the effect of assessment schedule on progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 428-32.

10.

Bhattacharya S. , Fyfe G. , Gray RJ , Sargent DJ Role of sensitivity analyses in assessing progression-free survival in late-stage oncology trials . J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5958-64.

11.

Freidlin B. , Korn EL , Hunsberger S. , et al. Proposal for the use of progression-free survival in unblinded randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2122-26.

12.

Carroll RJ Measurement error in epidemiologic studies. In Armitage P , Colton T. (eds). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. John Wiley, New York, 1998, pp. 2491-519.

13.

Rubinstein LV , Gail MH , Santner TJ Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observations. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 469-79.

14.

Dodd LE , Korn EL , Freidlin B. , et al. Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: important design element or unnecessary expense? J Clin Oncol 2008; 22: 3791-96.

15.

Meier AS , Richardson BA , Hughes JP Discrete proportional hazards models for mismeasured outcomes. Biometrics 2003; 59: 947-54.

16.

Skinner CJ , Humphreys K. Weibull regression for lifetimes measured with error. Lifetime Data Anal 1999; 5: 23-37.