Abstract
A recent international survey on the size of clinical trials in cancer showed the frequent problem of slow patient accrual, which remains a major hindrance to progress. The survey also revealed that, although the design of most trials specified a fixed number of patients, subsequent experience revealed a much more flexible approach, with analysis of results, say, every 4--6 months. Conventional sequential methods are hardly ever used and unfortunately most trials proceed without any predetermined stopping rules. Some trial organizers use repeated significance tests on accumulating data as a guide to the detection of treatment differences, an approach that can be adapted to a more rigorous statistical framework as a "group sequential design". The major statistical principle involved is that the more often one analyses the data the greater is the probability of achieving a statistically significant result, even when the two treatments are equally effective. Group sequential designs require the adoption of a more stringent significance level to allow for repeated testing. If one intends up to 10 repeated analyses of the data, only a treatment difference significant at the 1% level would merit a decision to stop the trial. For any trial to implement a stopping rule successfully there must also be prompt feedback and processing of response and survival data ready for up-to-date analysis. Such efficiency is often lacking. The repeated presentation of interim results of a trial to participating investigators can seriously affect their future reaction, especially if there are interesting but non-significant differences. Thus, some secrecy about ongoing results is advisable if trials are to achieve an unbiased conclusion.
Full text
PDFdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5065/d50654906a27cf29d2ccef3fd3ea0da6873da892" alt="757"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1538/e153896e007861125493f6f54ba5b38ca6945a42" alt="758"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1b9d/c1b9d98ed34d7f9e468b46a4ae8939d47313a35e" alt="759"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2175e/2175e1372155ca5dfa784f2b44e1f8637a05c4ad" alt="760"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85e37/85e37bd7752c0d6e455a2cf64d41062fb5c898f2" alt="761"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d28d9/d28d90876c54a50f59a6efbebdb1f6622277218e" alt="762"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea51c/ea51cb793df1c4d7dc4d75489eaf305cec39ee3e" alt="763"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/50d7e/50d7e41bfc607ab6014660c286b0c937c626a849" alt="764"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/80a1f/80a1f64217075a64cab75984e90f32c8b02fccd2" alt="765"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4da4b/4da4b5b6928b6fb161d303439f8a0898d3dc8939" alt="766"
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- McPherson K. Statistics: the problem of examining accumulating data more than once. N Engl J Med. 1974 Feb 28;290(9):501–502. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197402282900907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]