Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Methods Inf Med 2021; 60(01/02): 001-008
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721727
Original Article

Smoothing Corrections for Improving Sample Size Recalculation Rules in Adaptive Group Sequential Study Designs

Carolin Herrmann
1   Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Berlin, Germany
,
Geraldine Rauch
1   Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Berlin, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (grant RA 2347/4-1).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background An adequate sample size calculation is essential for designing a successful clinical trial. One way to tackle planning difficulties regarding parameter assumptions required for sample size calculation is to adapt the sample size during the ongoing trial.

This can be attained by adaptive group sequential study designs. At a predefined timepoint, the interim effect is tested for significance. Based on the interim test result, the trial is either stopped or continued with the possibility of a sample size recalculation.

Objectives Sample size recalculation rules have different limitations in application like a high variability of the recalculated sample size. Hence, the goal is to provide a tool to counteract this performance limitation.

Methods Sample size recalculation rules can be interpreted as functions of the observed interim effect. Often, a “jump” from the first stage's sample size to the maximal sample size at a rather arbitrarily chosen interim effect size is implemented and the curve decreases monotonically afterwards. This jump is one reason for a high variability of the sample size. In this work, we investigate how the shape of the recalculation function can be improved by implementing a smoother increase of the sample size. The design options are evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Evaluation criteria are univariate performance measures such as the conditional power and sample size as well as a conditional performance score which combines these components.

Results We demonstrate that smoothing corrections can reduce variability in conditional power and sample size as well as they increase the performance with respect to a recently published conditional performance score for medium and large standardized effect sizes.

Conclusion Based on the simulation study, we present a tool that is easily implemented to improve sample size recalculation rules. The approach can be combined with existing sample size recalculation rules described in the literature.

Keywords

clinical trial - adaptive study design - sample size - performance evaluation

Ethical Approval

This research is exclusively based on simulations and does not involve any human subject data.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 14 August 2020

Accepted: 23 October 2020

Article published online:
01 March 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Friede T, Kieser M. A comparison of methods for adaptive sample size adjustment. Stat Med 2001; 20 (24) 3861-3873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chen YH, DeMets DL, Lan KK. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising. Stat Med 2004; 23 (07) 1023-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Levin GP, Emerson SC, Emerson SS. Adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size: understanding efficient types of adaptation. Stat Med 2013; 32 (08) 1259-1275 , discussion 1280–1282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lehmacher W, Wassmer G. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics 1999; 55 (04) 1286-1290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Posch M, Bauer P. Adaptive two stage designs and the conditional error function. Biometrical J 1999; 41: 689-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Herrmann C, Pilz M, Kieser M, Rauch G. A new conditional performance score for the evaluation of adaptive group sequential designs with sample size recalculation. Stat Med 2020; 39 (15) 2067-2100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35 (03) 549-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977; 64: 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wang SK, Tsiatis AA. Approximately optimal one-parameter boundaries for group sequential trials. Biometrics 1987; 43 (01) 193-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Bowden J, Mander A. A review and re-interpretation of a group-sequential approach to sample size re-estimation in two-stage trials. Pharm Stat 2014; 13 (03) 163-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Melzack R, Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology 1971; 34 (01) 50-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar