{"title":"终点延迟对多臂多期试验效率的影响。","authors":"Aritra Mukherjee, James M S Wason","doi":"10.1002/sim.70245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) is an efficient class of trial designs that helps to assess multiple treatment strategies at the same time using an adaptive design. These designs can substantially reduce the average number of samples required compared to an equivalent single stage multi-arm trial. However, if patient recruitment is continued while we await treatment outcomes, a long-term primary outcome leads to a number of 'pipeline' patients getting recruited in the trial, who do not benefit from the early termination of a futile arm. This study focuses on quantifying the efficiency loss a MAMS design undergoes, in terms of the expected sample size (ESS), because of outcome delay. We first estimate the number of 'pipeline' patients (recruited during the interim analysis (IA) while awaiting outcome data) analytically through different recruitment models, given the total recruitment time. We then compute the ESS accounting for delay and assess the Efficiency Loss (EL). The results indicate that more than 50% of the expected efficiency gain is typically lost due to delay when the delay is more than <math> <semantics><mrow><mn>1</mn> <mo>/</mo> <mn>3</mn> <mtext>rd</mtext></mrow> <annotation>$$ 1/3\\mathrm{rd} $$</annotation></semantics> </math> of the total recruitment length. Although the number of stages have little influence on the efficiency loss, the timing of the IA can impact the efficiency of MAMS designs with delayed outcomes; in particular, conducting the IAs earlier than an equally-spaced design can be harmful for the design. Finally, we conclude that, in order to gain maximum benefit of MAMS in terms of a reduced sample size in multi-arm trials, the outcome delay should be less than a third of the total recruitment length.</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":"44 20-22","pages":"e70245"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12436084/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Endpoint Delay on the Efficiency of Multi Arm Multi Stage Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Aritra Mukherjee, James M S Wason\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sim.70245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) is an efficient class of trial designs that helps to assess multiple treatment strategies at the same time using an adaptive design. These designs can substantially reduce the average number of samples required compared to an equivalent single stage multi-arm trial. However, if patient recruitment is continued while we await treatment outcomes, a long-term primary outcome leads to a number of 'pipeline' patients getting recruited in the trial, who do not benefit from the early termination of a futile arm. This study focuses on quantifying the efficiency loss a MAMS design undergoes, in terms of the expected sample size (ESS), because of outcome delay. We first estimate the number of 'pipeline' patients (recruited during the interim analysis (IA) while awaiting outcome data) analytically through different recruitment models, given the total recruitment time. We then compute the ESS accounting for delay and assess the Efficiency Loss (EL). The results indicate that more than 50% of the expected efficiency gain is typically lost due to delay when the delay is more than <math> <semantics><mrow><mn>1</mn> <mo>/</mo> <mn>3</mn> <mtext>rd</mtext></mrow> <annotation>$$ 1/3\\\\mathrm{rd} $$</annotation></semantics> </math> of the total recruitment length. Although the number of stages have little influence on the efficiency loss, the timing of the IA can impact the efficiency of MAMS designs with delayed outcomes; in particular, conducting the IAs earlier than an equally-spaced design can be harmful for the design. Finally, we conclude that, in order to gain maximum benefit of MAMS in terms of a reduced sample size in multi-arm trials, the outcome delay should be less than a third of the total recruitment length.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"44 20-22\",\"pages\":\"e70245\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12436084/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70245\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70245","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
多臂多阶段(MAMS)是一种有效的试验设计,有助于使用自适应设计同时评估多种治疗策略。与同等的单阶段多臂试验相比,这些设计可以大大减少所需的平均样本数量。然而,如果在我们等待治疗结果的同时继续招募患者,长期的主要结果将导致许多“管道”患者被招募到试验中,他们不会从早期终止无效的手臂中受益。本研究的重点是量化MAMS设计所经历的效率损失,根据预期样本量(ESS),因为结果延迟。我们首先根据总招募时间,通过不同的招募模型对“管道”患者(在中期分析(IA)期间招募,同时等待结果数据)的数量进行了分析。然后,我们计算ESS会计延迟和评估效率损失(EL)。结果表明:50余% of the expected efficiency gain is typically lost due to delay when the delay is more than 1 / 3 rd $$ 1/3\mathrm{rd} $$ of the total recruitment length. Although the number of stages have little influence on the efficiency loss, the timing of the IA can impact the efficiency of MAMS designs with delayed outcomes; in particular, conducting the IAs earlier than an equally-spaced design can be harmful for the design. Finally, we conclude that, in order to gain maximum benefit of MAMS in terms of a reduced sample size in multi-arm trials, the outcome delay should be less than a third of the total recruitment length.
Impact of Endpoint Delay on the Efficiency of Multi Arm Multi Stage Trials.
Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) is an efficient class of trial designs that helps to assess multiple treatment strategies at the same time using an adaptive design. These designs can substantially reduce the average number of samples required compared to an equivalent single stage multi-arm trial. However, if patient recruitment is continued while we await treatment outcomes, a long-term primary outcome leads to a number of 'pipeline' patients getting recruited in the trial, who do not benefit from the early termination of a futile arm. This study focuses on quantifying the efficiency loss a MAMS design undergoes, in terms of the expected sample size (ESS), because of outcome delay. We first estimate the number of 'pipeline' patients (recruited during the interim analysis (IA) while awaiting outcome data) analytically through different recruitment models, given the total recruitment time. We then compute the ESS accounting for delay and assess the Efficiency Loss (EL). The results indicate that more than 50% of the expected efficiency gain is typically lost due to delay when the delay is more than of the total recruitment length. Although the number of stages have little influence on the efficiency loss, the timing of the IA can impact the efficiency of MAMS designs with delayed outcomes; in particular, conducting the IAs earlier than an equally-spaced design can be harmful for the design. Finally, we conclude that, in order to gain maximum benefit of MAMS in terms of a reduced sample size in multi-arm trials, the outcome delay should be less than a third of the total recruitment length.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.