Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A previous study demonstrated that power against the (unobserved) true effect for the primary end point (PEP) of most phase III oncology trials is low, suggesting an increased risk of false-negative findings in the field of late-phase oncology. Fitting models with prognostic covariates is a potential solution to improve power; however, the extent to which trials leverage this approach, and its impact on trial interpretation at scale, is unknown. To that end, we hypothesized that phase III trials using multivariable PEP analyses are more likely to demonstrate superiority versus trials with univariable analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sherry et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: