Zheng Chen

WEE1 inhibition in cancer therapy: Mechanisms, synergies, preclinical insights, and clinical trials

Sample size calculation for mixture cure model with restricted mean survival time as a primary endpoint

It is not uncommon for a substantial proportion of patients to be cured (or survive long-term) in clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints, such as the endometrial cancer trial. When designing a clinical trial, a mixture cure model should be used to fully consider the cure fraction. Previously, mixture cure model sample size calculations were based on the proportional hazards assumption of latency distribution between groups, and the log-rank test was used for deriving sample size formulas. In real studies, the latency distributions of the two groups often do not satisfy the proportional hazards assumptions. This article has derived a sample size calculation formula for a mixture cure model with restricted mean survival time as the primary endpoint, and did simulation and example studies. The restricted mean survival time test is not subject to proportional hazards assumptions, and the difference in treatment effect obtained can be quantified as the number of years (or months) increased or decreased in survival time, making it very convenient for clinical patient-physician communication. The simulation results showed that the sample sizes estimated by the restricted mean survival time test for the mixture cure model were accurate regardless of whether the proportional hazards assumptions were satisfied and were smaller than the sample sizes estimated by the log-rank test in most cases for the scenarios in which the proportional hazards assumptions were violated.

Moving beyond the Cox proportional hazards model in survival data analysis: a cervical cancer study

Objectives This study explored the prognostic factors and developed a prediction model for Chinese-American (CA) cervical cancer (CC) patients. We compared two alternative models (the restricted mean survival time (RMST) model and the proportional baselines landmark supermodel (PBLS model, producing dynamic prediction)) versus the Cox proportional hazards model in the context of time-varying effects. Setting and data sources A total of 713 CA women with CC and available covariates (age at diagnosis, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, lymph node metastasis and radiation) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database were included. Design We applied the Cox proportional hazards model to analyse the all-cause mortality with the proportional hazards assumption. Additionally, we applied two alternative models to analyse covariates with time-varying effects. The performances of the models were compared using the C-index for discrimination and the shrinkage slope for calibration. Results Older patients had a worse survival rate than younger patients. Advanced FIGO stage patients showed a relatively poor survival rate and low life expectancy. Lymph node metastasis was an unfavourable prognostic factor in our models. Age at diagnosis, FIGO stage and lymph node metastasis represented time-varying effects from the PBLS model. Additionally, radiation showed no impact on survival in any model. Dynamic prediction presented a better performance for 5-year dynamic death rates than did the Cox proportional hazards model. Conclusions With the time-varying effects, the RMST model was suggested to explore diagnosis factors, and the PBLS model was recommended to predict a patient’s w -year dynamic death rate.