A Simulation Study to Evaluate Accuracy and Precision of Blinded Independent Central Reviews of Progression-free Survival in Cancer Clinical Trials
|Walovitch R1*, Girardi V1 and Duan F2|
|1WorldCare Clinical, LLC, 7 Bulfinch Place, Boston, MA 02114, USA|
|2Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA|
|Corresponding Author :||Walovitch R
WorldCare Clinical, LLC
7 Bulfinch Place
Boston, MA 02114, USA
Tel: +1 617 583 1606
Fax: +1 513 352 9564
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received July 25, 2013; Accepted September 20, 2013; Published September 23, 2013|
|Citation: Walovitch R, Girardi V, Duan F (2013) A Simulation Study to Evaluate Accuracy and Precision of Blinded Independent Central Reviews of Progressionfree Survival in Cancer Clinical Trials. J Clin Trials 3:142. doi:10.4172/2167-0870.1000142|
|Copyright: © 2013 Walovitch R, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Purpose: To model the effect of accuracy and precision on hazard ratios, sample size and overall trial cost in Progression-Free Survival (PFS) trials using different Blinded Independent Review (BICR) paradigms.
Method: PFS times were simulated based on a tumor growth model using a median 180 days in the treatment arm; the control arm varied according to Hazard Ratios (HR) from 0.7-0.85. False positives were added for varying accuracy (1-False positive rate) and a log normal distribution of measurement error was used for varying precision. Local Evaluation (LE) accuracy of 70% and measurement error’s standard deviation of 0.30 were compared to different BICR paradigms with varying accuracy and precision (i.e., accuracy =70,90% & precision .30,.25,.20).
Results: Compared to LE, all BICR paradigms decreased overall trial costs by $ 0.0037 - 26.6.3×106 and sample sizes by 12-435 with effect magnitude being greatest at higher HRs, higher accuracy and lower measurement error.
Conclusion: Our study indicates that for trials with PFS based on a radiological assessment, BICR can be a cost-effective strategy by decreasing sample sizes and trial costs. More importantly, the study provides a quantitative indication of how changing accuracy and precision can alter sample size projections and trial cost.