BENCHMARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INDEPENDENT MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT TOOL FOR CLINICAL TRIALS

Introduction Commercial treatment planning systems employ a variety of dose calculation algorithms to plan and predict the dose distributions a patient receives during external beam radiation therapy. Traditionally, the Radiological Physics Center has relied on measurements to assure that institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute sponsored clinical trials administer radiation in doses that are clinically comparable to those of other participating institutions. To complement the effort of the RPC, an independent dose calculation tool needs to be developed that will enable a generic method to determine patient dose distributions in three dimensions and to perform retrospective analysis of radiation delivered to patients who enrolled in past clinical trials. Methods A multi-source model representing output for Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams was developed and evaluated. The Monte Carlo algorithm, know as the Dose Planning Method (DPM), was used to perform the dose calculations. The dose calculations were compared to measurements made in a water phantom and in anthropomorphic phantoms. Intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques were used with the anthropomorphic phantoms. Finally, past patient treatment plans were selected and recalculated using DPM and contrasted against a commercial dose calculation algorithm. Results The multi-source model was validated for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. The benchmark evaluations demonstrated the ability of the model to accurately calculate dose for the Varian 6 MV and the Varian 10 MV source models. The patient calculations proved that the model was reproducible in determining dose under similar conditions described by the benchmark tests. Conclusions The dose calculation tool that relied on a multi-source model approach and used the DPM code to calculate dose was developed, validated, and benchmarked for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. Several patient dose distributions were contrasted against a commercial algorithm to provide a proof of principal to use as an application in monitoring clinical trial activity.

Sample size considerations using mathematical models: an example with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and its sequelae pelvic inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND The success of an intervention to prevent the complications of an infection is influenced by the natural history of the infection. Assumptions about the temporal relationship between infection and the development of sequelae can affect the predicted effect size of an intervention and the sample size calculation. This study investigates how a mathematical model can be used to inform sample size calculations for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the example of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). METHODS We used a compartmental model to imitate the structure of a published RCT. We considered three different processes for the timing of PID development, in relation to the initial C. trachomatis infection: immediate, constant throughout, or at the end of the infectious period. For each process we assumed that, of all women infected, the same fraction would develop PID in the absence of an intervention. We examined two sets of assumptions used to calculate the sample size in a published RCT that investigated the effect of chlamydia screening on PID incidence. We also investigated the influence of the natural history parameters of chlamydia on the required sample size. RESULTS The assumed event rates and effect sizes used for the sample size calculation implicitly determined the temporal relationship between chlamydia infection and PID in the model. Even small changes in the assumed PID incidence and relative risk (RR) led to considerable differences in the hypothesised mechanism of PID development. The RR and the sample size needed per group also depend on the natural history parameters of chlamydia. CONCLUSIONS Mathematical modelling helps to understand the temporal relationship between an infection and its sequelae and can show how uncertainties about natural history parameters affect sample size calculations when planning a RCT.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

Purpose: To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women’s inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter. Methods: We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998–2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline. Results: Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n = 52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n = 13) and 9% (n = 7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex. Conclusions: Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Estimation of Sample Size and Power For Quantile Regression

Quantile regression (QR) was first introduced by Roger Koenker and Gilbert Bassett in 1978. It is robust to outliers which affect least squares estimator on a large scale in linear regression. Instead of modeling mean of the response, QR provides an alternative way to model the relationship between quantiles of the response and covariates. Therefore, QR can be widely used to solve problems in econometrics, environmental sciences and health sciences. Sample size is an important factor in the planning stage of experimental design and observational studies. In ordinary linear regression, sample size may be determined based on either precision analysis or power analysis with closed form formulas. There are also methods that calculate sample size based on precision analysis for QR like C.Jennen-Steinmetz and S.Wellek (2005). A method to estimate sample size for QR based on power analysis was proposed by Shao and Wang (2009). In this paper, a new method is proposed to calculate sample size based on power analysis under hypothesis test of covariate effects. Even though error distribution assumption is not necessary for QR analysis itself, researchers have to make assumptions of error distribution and covariate structure in the planning stage of a study to obtain a reasonable estimate of sample size. In this project, both parametric and nonparametric methods are provided to estimate error distribution. Since the method proposed can be implemented in R, user is able to choose either parametric distribution or nonparametric kernel density estimation for error distribution. User also needs to specify the covariate structure and effect size to carry out sample size and power calculation. The performance of the method proposed is further evaluated using numerical simulation. The results suggest that the sample sizes obtained from our method provide empirical powers that are closed to the nominal power level, for example, 80%.

A practical comparison of blinded methods for sample size reviews in survival data clinical trials.

This paper presents practical approaches to the problem of sample size re-estimation in the case of clinical trials with survival data when proportional hazards can be assumed. When data are readily available at the time of the review, on a full range of survival experiences across the recruited patients, it is shown that, as expected, performing a blinded re-estimation procedure is straightforward and can help to maintain the trial's pre-specified error rates. Two alternative methods for dealing with the situation where limited survival experiences are available at the time of the sample size review are then presented and compared. In this instance, extrapolation is required in order to undertake the sample size re-estimation. Worked examples, together with results from a simulation study are described. It is concluded that, as in the standard case, use of either extrapolation approach successfully protects the trial error rates. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A mixed approach for proving non-inferiority in clinical trials with binary endpoints

When a new treatment is compared to an established one in a randomized clinical trial, it is standard practice to statistically test for non-inferiority rather than for superiority. When the endpoint is binary, one usually compares two treatments using either an odds-ratio or a difference of proportions. In this paper, we propose a mixed approach which uses both concepts. One first defines the non-inferiority margin using an odds-ratio and one ultimately proves non-inferiority statistically using a difference of proportions. The mixed approach is shown to be more powerful than the conventional odds-ratio approach when the efficacy of the established treatment is known (with good precision) and high (e.g. with more than 56% of success). The gain of power achieved may lead in turn to a substantial reduction in the sample size needed to prove non-inferiority. The mixed approach can be generalized to ordinal endpoints.

Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

The Endothelial Sample Size Analysis in Corneal Specular Microscopy Clinical Examinations

Purpose: To evaluate endothelial cell sample size and statistical error in corneal specular microscopy (CSM) examinations. Methods: One hundred twenty examinations were conducted with 4 types of corneal specular microscopes: 30 with each BioOptics, CSO, Konan, and Topcon corneal specular microscopes. All endothelial image data were analyzed by respective instrument software and also by the Cells Analyzer software with a method developed in our lab(US Patent). A reliability degree (RD) of 95% and a relative error (RE) of 0.05 were used as cut-off values to analyze images of the counted endothelial cells called samples. The sample size mean was the number of cells evaluated on the images obtained with each device. Only examinations with RE<0.05 were considered statistically correct and suitable for comparisons with future examinations. The Cells Analyzer software was used to calculate the RE and customized sample size for all examinations. Results: Bio-Optics: sample size, 97 +/- 22 cells; RE, 6.52 +/- 0.86; only 10% of the examinations had sufficient endothelial cell quantity (RE<0.05); customized sample size, 162 +/- 34 cells. CSO: sample size, 110 +/- 20 cells; RE, 5.98 +/- 0.98; only 16.6% of the examinations had sufficient endothelial cell quantity (RE<0.05); customized sample size, 157 +/- 45 cells. Konan: sample size, 80 +/- 27 cells; RE, 10.6 +/- 3.67; none of the examinations had sufficient endothelial cell quantity (RE>0.05); customized sample size, 336 +/- 131 cells. Topcon: sample size, 87 +/- 17 cells; RE, 10.1 +/- 2.52; none of the examinations had sufficient endothelial cell quantity (RE>0.05); customized sample size, 382 +/- 159 cells. Conclusions: A very high number of CSM examinations had sample errors based on Cells Analyzer software. The endothelial sample size (examinations) needs to include more cells to be reliable and reproducible. The Cells Analyzer tutorial routine will be useful for CSM examination reliability and reproducibility.

Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs

Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.

A new combined endpoint using U-statistic in analysis in clinical trials

Common endpoints can be divided into two categories. One is dichotomous endpoints which take only fixed values (most of the time two values). The other is continuous endpoints which can be any real number between two specified values. Choices of primary endpoints are critical in clinical trials. If we only use dichotomous endpoints, the power could be underestimated. If only continuous endpoints are chosen, we may not obtain expected sample size due to occurrence of some significant clinical events. Combined endpoints are used in clinical trials to give additional power. However, current combined endpoints or composite endpoints in cardiovascular disease clinical trials or most clinical trials are endpoints that combine either dichotomous endpoints (total mortality + total hospitalization), or continuous endpoints (risk score). Our present work applied U-statistic to combine one dichotomous endpoint and one continuous endpoint, which has three different assessments and to calculate the sample size and test the hypothesis to see if there is any treatment effect. It is especially useful when some patients cannot provide the most precise measurement due to medical contraindication or some personal reasons. Results show that this method has greater power then the analysis using continuous endpoints alone. ^

Effect of patient accrual patterns on power and size of log-rank test for time-to-event outcome in clinical trials

The determination of size as well as power of a test is a vital part of a Clinical Trial Design. This research focuses on the simulation of clinical trial data with time-to-event as the primary outcome. It investigates the impact of different recruitment patterns, and time dependent hazard structures on size and power of the log-rank test. A non-homogeneous Poisson process is used to simulate entry times according to the different accrual patterns. A Weibull distribution is employed to simulate survival times according to the different hazard structures. The current study utilizes simulation methods to evaluate the effect of different recruitment patterns on size and power estimates of the log-rank test. The size of the log-rank test is estimated by simulating survival times with identical hazard rates between the treatment and the control arm of the study resulting in a hazard ratio of one. Powers of the log-rank test at specific values of hazard ratio (≠1) are estimated by simulating survival times with different, but proportional hazard rates for the two arms of the study. Different shapes (constant, decreasing, or increasing) of the hazard function of the Weibull distribution are also considered to assess the effect of hazard structure on the size and power of the log-rank test. ^

A simulation study using the hybrid statistic and the meta-analysis t-test for data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials

An interim analysis is usually applied in later phase II or phase III trials to find convincing evidence of a significant treatment difference that may lead to trial termination at an earlier point than planned at the beginning. This can result in the saving of patient resources and shortening of drug development and approval time. In addition, ethics and economics are also the reasons to stop a trial earlier. In clinical trials of eyes, ears, knees, arms, kidneys, lungs, and other clustered treatments, data may include distribution-free random variables with matched and unmatched subjects in one study. It is important to properly include both subjects in the interim and the final analyses so that the maximum efficiency of statistical and clinical inferences can be obtained at different stages of the trials. So far, no publication has applied a statistical method for distribution-free data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials. In this simulation study, the hybrid statistic was used to estimate the empirical powers and the empirical type I errors among the simulated datasets with different sample sizes, different effect sizes, different correlation coefficients for matched pairs, and different data distributions, respectively, in the interim and final analysis with 4 different group sequential methods. Empirical powers and empirical type I errors were also compared to those estimated by using the meta-analysis t-test among the same simulated datasets. Results from this simulation study show that, compared to the meta-analysis t-test commonly used for data with normally distributed observations, the hybrid statistic has a greater power for data observed from normally, log-normally, and multinomially distributed random variables with matched and unmatched subjects and with outliers. Powers rose with the increase in sample size, effect size, and correlation coefficient for the matched pairs. In addition, lower type I errors were observed estimated by using the hybrid statistic, which indicates that this test is also conservative for data with outliers in the interim analysis of clinical trials.^

Optimal, minimax, and Bayesian two-stage designs in two-dose phase II clinical trials

Background: For most cytotoxic and biologic anti-cancer agents, the response rate of the drug is commonly assumed to be non-decreasing with an increasing dose. However, an increasing dose does not always result in an appreciable increase in the response rate. This may especially be true at high doses for a biologic agent. Therefore, in a phase II trial the investigators may be interested in testing the anti-tumor activity of a drug at more than one (often two) doses, instead of only at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). This way, when the lower dose appears equally effective, this dose can be recommended for further confirmatory testing in a phase III trial under potential long-term toxicity and cost considerations. A common approach to designing such a phase II trial has been to use an independent (e.g., Simon's two-stage) design at each dose ignoring the prior knowledge about the ordering of the response probabilities at the different doses. However, failure to account for this ordering constraint in estimating the response probabilities may result in an inefficient design. In this dissertation, we developed extensions of Simon's optimal and minimax two-stage designs, including both frequentist and Bayesian methods, for two doses that assume ordered response rates between doses. ^ Methods: Optimal and minimax two-stage designs are proposed for phase II clinical trials in settings where the true response rates at two dose levels are ordered. We borrow strength between doses using isotonic regression and control the joint and/or marginal error probabilities. Bayesian two-stage designs are also proposed under a stochastic ordering constraint. ^ Results: Compared to Simon's designs, when controlling the power and type I error at the same levels, the proposed frequentist and Bayesian designs reduce the maximum and expected sample sizes. Most of the proposed designs also increase the probability of early termination when the true response rates are poor. ^ Conclusion: Proposed frequentist and Bayesian designs are superior to Simon's designs in terms of operating characteristics (expected sample size and probability of early termination, when the response rates are poor) Thus, the proposed designs lead to more cost-efficient and ethical trials, and may consequently improve and expedite the drug discovery process. The proposed designs may be extended to designs of multiple group trials and drug combination trials.^

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.