New analysis method compares treatment effects in oncology, suggesting improved accuracy with p-values and addressing censoring issues.
Background/Objectives: Time-to-event endpoints such as Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), and Event-Free Survival (EFS) are central in phase III oncology trials. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models and log-rank tests are the standard analytic tools, supplemented by Kaplan–Meier estimates. However, these methods depend on proportional hazards to deliver unbiased estimates of treatment effects and large-sample assumptions, and may perform poorly under heavy censoring or non-proportional hazards. We introduce the univariate martingale residual (UMR) as a new endpoint and summary measure that enables exact inference through randomization testing. Methods: The UMR reflects the difference between observed and expected events at the subject level. Average UMRs per treatment arm provide an absolute measure of excess events. A randomization-based testing framework is used to compare treatment arms and compute exact p-values without proportional hazards or asymptotic assumptions. Performance is assessed through simulations and demonstrated using real oncology trial data. Results: UMRs offered robust and interpretable treatment summaries under heavy censoring, non-proportional hazards, and quasi-complete separation, where Cox-based estimates were unstable or undefined. The exact UMR-based randomization test maintained Type I error control and was competitive or more powerful than the log-rank test when proportional hazards were violated. Conclusions: The UMR provides an intuitive, assumption-free summary of treatment effects and supports exact inference. It represents a practical and robust alternative to hazard-ratio-based methods in phase III oncology trials, especially in complex survival settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hutson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: