Restricted Net Treatment Benefit in oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The restricted Net Treatment Benefit (rNTB) is a clinically meaningful and tractable estimand of the overall treatment effect assessed in randomized trials when at least one survival endpoint with time restriction is used. Its interpretation does not rely on parametric assumptions such as proportional hazards, can be estimated without bias even in the presence of independent right-censoring, and can include a prespecified threshold of minimal clinically relevant difference. To demonstrate that the rNTB, corresponding to the NTB during a predefined time interval, is a meaningful and adaptable measure of treatment effect in clinical trials. METHODS: In this simulation study, we tested the impact on the rNTB value, estimation, and power of several factors including the presence of a delayed treatment effect, minimal clinically relevant difference threshold value, restriction time value, and the inclusion of both efficacy and toxicity in the rNTB definition. The impact of right censoring on rNTB was assessed in terms of bias. rNTB-derived statistical tests and log rank (LR) tests were compared in terms of power. RESULTS: RNTB estimates are unbiased even in case of right-censoring. rNTB may be used to estimate the benefit/risk ratio of a new treatment, for example, taking into account both survival and toxicity and include several prioritized outcomes. The estimated rNTB is much easier to interpret in this context compared to NTB in the presence of censoring since the latter is intrinsically dependent on the follow-up duration. Including toxicity increases the test power when the experimental treatment is less toxic. rNTB-derived test power increases when the experimental treatment is associated with longer survival and lower toxicity and might increase in the presence of a cure rate or a delayed treatment effect. Case applications on the PRODIGE, Checkmate-066, and Checkmate-067 trials are provided. CONCLUSIONS: RNTB is an interesting alternative to describe and test the treatment's effect in a clear and understandable way in case of restriction, particularly in scenarios with nonproportional hazards or when trying to balance benefit and safety. It can be tuned to take into consideration short- or long-term survival differences and one or more prioritized outcomes.

Design of a clinical trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to test a less intensive treatment regimen.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Showing "similar efficacy" of a less intensive treatment typically requires a non-inferiority trial. Yet such trials may be challenging to design and conduct. In acute promyelocytic leukemia, great progress has been achieved with the introduction of targeted therapies, but toxicity remains a major clinical issue. There is a pressing need to show the favorable benefit/risk of less intensive treatment regimens. METHODS: We designed a clinical trial that uses generalized pairwise comparisons of five prioritized outcomes (alive and event-free at 2 years, grade 3/4 documented infections, differentiation syndrome, hepatotoxicity, and neuropathy) to confirm a favorable benefit/risk of a less intensive treatment regimen. We conducted simulations based on historical data and assumptions about the differences expected between the standard of care and the less intensive treatment regimen to calculate the sample size required to have high power to show a positive Net Treatment Benefit in favor of the less intensive treatment regimen. RESULTS: Across 10,000 simulations, average sample sizes of 260 to 300 patients are required for a trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to detect typical Net Treatment Benefits of 0.19 (interquartile range 0.14-0.23 for a sample size of 280). The Net Treatment Benefit is interpreted as a difference between the probability of doing better on the less intensive treatment regimen than on the standard of care, minus the probability of the opposite situation. A Net Treatment Benefit of 0.19 translates to a number needed to treat of about 5.3 patients (1/0.19 ≃ 5.3). CONCLUSION: Generalized pairwise comparisons allow for simultaneous assessment of efficacy and safety, with priority given to the former. The sample size required would be of the order of 300 patients, as compared with more than 700 patients for a non-inferiority trial using a margin of 4% against the less intensive treatment regimen for the absolute difference in event-free survival at 2 years, as considered here.

The Net Benefit of a treatment should take the correlation between benefits and harms into account.

OBJECTIVE: The assessment of benefits and harms from experimental treatments often ignores the association between outcomes. In a randomized trial, generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) can be used to assess a Net Benefit that takes this association into account. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We use GPC to analyze a fictitious trial of treatment versus control, with a binary efficacy outcome (response) and a binary toxicity outcome, as well as data from two actual randomized trials in oncology. In all cases, we compute the Net Benefit for scenarios with different orders of priority between response and toxicity, and a range of odds ratios (ORs) for the association between these outcomes. RESULTS: The GPC Net Benefit was quite different from the benefit/harm computed using marginal treatment effects on response and toxicity. In the fictitious trial using response as first priority, treatment had an unfavorable Net Benefit if OR < 1, but favorable if OR > 1. With OR = 1, the Net Benefit was 0. Results changed drastically using toxicity as first priority. CONCLUSION: Even in a simple situation, marginal treatment effects can be misleading. In contrast, GPC assesses the Net Benefit as a function of the treatment effects on each outcome, the association between outcomes, and individual patient priorities.

Net benefit in the presence of correlated prioritized outcomes using generalized pairwise comparisons: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: The prioritized net benefit (Δ) is a measure of the benefit-risk balance in clinical trials, based on generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) using several prioritized outcomes. Its estimation requires the classification as Wins or Losses of all possible pairs of patients, one from the experimental treatment (E) group and one from the control treatment (C) group. In this simulation study, we assessed the impact of the correlation between prioritized outcomes on Δ, its estimate, bias, size, and power. METHODS: The theoretical Δ value was derived for the specific case of two correlated binary outcomes when a normal copula is used. Focusing on one efficacy and one toxicity outcome, two situations frequently met in practice were simulated: binary efficacy outcome with binary toxicity outcome, or time to event efficacy outcome with categorical toxicity outcome. Several scenarios of efficacy and toxicity were generated, with various levels of correlation. RESULTS: When E was more effective than C, positive correlations were mainly associated with a decrease in the proportion of Losses, while negative correlations were associated with a decrease in the proportion of Wins on the toxicity outcome. This resulted in an increase of Δ^ with the intensity of the positive correlation without adding any bias. Results were similar whatever the type of outcomes generated but led to power alteration. CONCLUSION: Correlations between outcomes analyzed with GPC led to substantial but predictable modifications of Δ and its estimate. Correlations should be taken into consideration when performing sample size estimations in clinical trials.

Expert knowledge elicitation using computer simulation: the organization of frail elderly case management as an illustration.

BACKGROUND: Various elderly case management projects have been implemented in Belgium. This type of long-term health care intervention involves contextual factors and human interactions. These underlying complex mechanisms can be usefully informed with field experts' knowledge, which are hard to make explicit. However, computer simulation has been suggested as one possible method of overcoming the difficulty of articulating such elicited qualitative views. METHODS: A simulation model of case management was designed using an agent-based methodology, based on the initial qualitative research material. Variables and rules of interaction were formulated into a simple conceptual framework. This model has been implemented and was used as a support for a structured discussion with experts in case management. RESULTS: The rigorous formulation provided by the agent-based methodology clarified the descriptions of the interventions and the problems encountered regarding: the diverse network topologies of health care actors in the project; the adaptation time required by the intervention; the communication between the health care actors; the institutional context; the organization of the care; and the role of the case manager and his or hers personal ability to interpret the informal demands of the frail older person. CONCLUSION: The simulation model should be seen primarily as a tool for thinking and learning. A number of insights were gained as part of a valuable cognitive process. Computer simulation supporting field experts' elicitation can lead to better-informed decisions in the organization of complex health care interventions.

Rule-based modeling of chronic disease epidemiology: elderly depression as an illustration.

BACKGROUND: Rule-based Modeling (RBM) is a computer simulation modeling methodology already used to model infectious diseases. Extending this technique to the assessment of chronic diseases, mixing quantitative and qualitative data appear to be a promising alternative to classical methods. Elderly depression reveals an important source of comorbidities. Yet, the intertwined relationship between late-life events and the social support of the elderly person remains difficult to capture. We illustrate the usefulness of RBM in modeling chronic diseases using the example of elderly depression in Belgium. METHODS: We defined a conceptual framework of interactions between late-life events and social support impacting elderly depression. This conceptual framework was underpinned by experts' opinions elicited through a questionnaire. Several scenarios were implemented successively to better mimic the real population, and to explore a treatment effect and a socio-economic distinction. The simulated patterns of depression by age were compared with empirical patterns retrieved from the Belgian Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Simulations were run using different groupings of experts' opinions on the parameters. The results indicate that the conceptual framework can reflect a realistic evolution of the prevalence of depression. Indeed, simulations combining the opinions of well-selected experts and a treatment effect showed no significant difference with the empirical pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Our conceptual framework together with a quantification of parameters through elicited expert opinions improves the insights into possible dynamics driving elderly depression. While RBM does not require high-level skill in mathematics or computer programming, the whole implementation process provides a powerful tool to learn about complex chronic diseases, combining advantages of both quantitative and qualitative approaches.