Table 4 Comparison between the proposed two-stage minimax design with survival endpoint and Simon’s two-stage minimax design with binary endpoint with or without interim accrual, when α=5%, β=20%, and the shape parameter k=0.5 in the Weibull distribution
From: Two-stage optimal designs with survival endpoint when the follow-up time is restricted
Simon’s two-stage minimax designs | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survival endpoint | No interim accrual | Interim accrual | |||||||||
S0(tc) | S1(tc) | n 1 | n | E S S 0 | E T S L 0 | n 1 | n | ESS0(%) | ETSL0(%) | ESS0(%) | ETSL0(%) |
0.1 | 0.2 | 37 | 63 | 50.5 | 2.5 | 45 | 78 | 60.6 (17%) | 3.8 (35%) | 74.3 (32%) | 3.3 (26%) |
0.1 | 0.25 | 19 | 33 | 26.2 | 2.5 | 22 | 40 | 28.8 (9%) | 3.5 (30%) | 37.5 (30%) | 3.1 (21%) |
0.1 | 0.3 | 11 | 21 | 15.6 | 2.3 | 15 | 25 | 19.5 (20%) | 3.8 (39%) | 24.5 (36%) | 3.3 (30%) |
0.6 | 0.7 | 87 | 162 | 126.6 | 3.2 | 139 | 142 | 139.2 (9%) | 4.0 (20%) | 184.5 (31%) | 3.9 (19%) |
0.6 | 0.75 | 33 | 70 | 49.4 | 2.8 | 30 | 62 | 43.8 (-13%) | 3.6 (20%) | 55.7 (11%) | 3.1 (9%) |
0.6 | 0.8 | 17 | 39 | 26.0 | 2.6 | 13 | 35 | 20.8 (-25%) | 3.1 (16%) | 28.5 (9%) | 2.8 (5%) |