2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing accuracy of Weibull shape parameter estimate from historical studies for subsequent sample size calculation in clinical trials with time-to-event outcome

      , , ,
      Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Recent developments in literature on sample size calculations for time-to-event outcomes involve assumption of Weibull distributed times. These methods require a point estimate of the Weibull shape parameter obtained from historical studies. However, very limited guidance exists in published literature to assess how reliable this point estimate is when it is obtained from published results of a historical study. Methods We conduct simulations to assess how accurate and reliable the point estimate of the Weibull shape parameter is when it is estimated from published results of median survival time and/or corresponding interquartile range. Accuracy of this estimate is assessed using the criteria of average relative bias, root mean square error, and coefficient of variation for various combinations of sample sizes and censoring rates. Sensitivity of these calculations is assessed first, by increasing the number of survival quantiles used to calculate accuracy, and second, by using the full Kaplan Meier (KM) curve from the historical study. Results Our simulations suggest that point estimate of the shape parameter is reasonably accurate when estimated from historical studies with sample size ≥ 50 with censoring rate approximately 20%. Knowledge of the median and inter-quartile range seems to be adequate for this purpose. For historical studies with small sample sizes or higher censoring rates, more information needs to be abstracted from the published KM curves to improve accuracy. Conclusions We conclude that assessing the accuracy of Weibull shape parameter estimate is important before it can be used to conduct sample size calculations for a subsequent trial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comparing survival of a sample to that of a standard population.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Second-line systemic treatment for advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

            Gemcitabine plus platinum (GEM-P) combination chemotherapy is standard treatment for first-line advanced cholangiocarcinoma (aCC). GEM-P first-line therapy reports a progression-free survival (PFS) of 8 months and overall survival (OS) of 11.7 months. Treatment in the second-line setting is less clear. Five-year survival for aCC remains dismal at 5-10%. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes with second-line systemic treatment at our institution.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sample size calculation for the one-sample log-rank test

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
                Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
                Elsevier BV
                24518654
                March 2020
                March 2020
                : 17
                : 100548
                Article
                10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100548
                69001bb0-0172-4b50-a305-863f8f207045
                © 2020

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article