Joseph M Unger, Gina L Mazza, Mohamed I Elsaid, Fenhai Duan, Emily V Dressler, Anna C Snavely, Danielle M Enserro, Stephanie L Pugh
{"title":"什么时候调整癌症临床试验的多样性。","authors":"Joseph M Unger, Gina L Mazza, Mohamed I Elsaid, Fenhai Duan, Emily V Dressler, Anna C Snavely, Danielle M Enserro, Stephanie L Pugh","doi":"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgae051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interpreting cancer clinical trial results often depends on addressing issues of multiplicity. When testing multiple hypotheses, unreliable findings can occur by chance due to the inflation of the type I error rate, the probability of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. In this setting, researchers may often set the type I error rate (or the alpha level) low to limit false positive findings and the interpretation of a causal relationship where none exists. Conversely, overly conservative type I error control may result in declaring findings, that do not meet multiplicity-adjusted alpha levels, as false when they are actually true, reducing opportunities for new discovery. This presentation focuses on multiplicity adjustment in the context of clinical trials conducted within the NCI's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Because federally sponsored trials often require long-term participation from patients and represent a substantial investment by taxpayers, striking the right balance between optimizing what is learned from these trials, while avoiding false positive results, should be a priority.</p>","PeriodicalId":73988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","volume":"2025 68","pages":"3-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When to adjust for multiplicity in cancer clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph M Unger, Gina L Mazza, Mohamed I Elsaid, Fenhai Duan, Emily V Dressler, Anna C Snavely, Danielle M Enserro, Stephanie L Pugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgae051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Interpreting cancer clinical trial results often depends on addressing issues of multiplicity. When testing multiple hypotheses, unreliable findings can occur by chance due to the inflation of the type I error rate, the probability of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. In this setting, researchers may often set the type I error rate (or the alpha level) low to limit false positive findings and the interpretation of a causal relationship where none exists. Conversely, overly conservative type I error control may result in declaring findings, that do not meet multiplicity-adjusted alpha levels, as false when they are actually true, reducing opportunities for new discovery. This presentation focuses on multiplicity adjustment in the context of clinical trials conducted within the NCI's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Because federally sponsored trials often require long-term participation from patients and represent a substantial investment by taxpayers, striking the right balance between optimizing what is learned from these trials, while avoiding false positive results, should be a priority.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs\",\"volume\":\"2025 68\",\"pages\":\"3-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848029/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgae051\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgae051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
癌症临床试验结果的解读往往取决于多重性问题的解决。当测试多个假设时,由于 I 型错误率(即当零假设为真时错误地拒绝零假设的概率)的膨胀,可能会偶然出现不可靠的结果。在这种情况下,研究人员通常会将 I 型错误率(或α水平)设得较低,以限制假阳性结果和对不存在因果关系的解释。相反,过于保守的 I 型误差控制可能会导致将不符合多重性调整α水平的研究结果宣布为假,而实际上它们是真的,从而减少了新发现的机会。本讲座重点介绍在 NCI 社区肿瘤研究计划(NCORP)范围内开展的临床试验中的多重性调整。由于联邦政府赞助的试验通常需要患者长期参与,而且纳税人需要投入大量资金,因此在优化从这些试验中获得的知识的同时避免假阳性结果之间取得适当的平衡应该是一个优先事项。
When to adjust for multiplicity in cancer clinical trials.
Interpreting cancer clinical trial results often depends on addressing issues of multiplicity. When testing multiple hypotheses, unreliable findings can occur by chance due to the inflation of the type I error rate, the probability of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. In this setting, researchers may often set the type I error rate (or the alpha level) low to limit false positive findings and the interpretation of a causal relationship where none exists. Conversely, overly conservative type I error control may result in declaring findings, that do not meet multiplicity-adjusted alpha levels, as false when they are actually true, reducing opportunities for new discovery. This presentation focuses on multiplicity adjustment in the context of clinical trials conducted within the NCI's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Because federally sponsored trials often require long-term participation from patients and represent a substantial investment by taxpayers, striking the right balance between optimizing what is learned from these trials, while avoiding false positive results, should be a priority.