Table 5 Comparison between the proposed two-stage optimal design with survival endpoint and Simon’s two-stage optimal 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 optimal 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 | 26 | 72 | 45.1 | 2.2 | 30 | 89 | 50.8 (11%) | 3.3 (35%) | 67.6 (33%) | 3.0 (27%) |
0.1 | 0.25 | 15 | 37 | 24.0 | 2.2 | 18 | 43 | 24.7 (3%) | 3.1 (29%) | 34.9 (31%) | 2.8 (22%) |
0.1 | 0.3 | 10 | 23 | 15.0 | 2.2 | 10 | 29 | 15.0 (0%) | 3.1 (29%) | 21.6 (30%) | 2.8 (21%) |
0.6 | 0.7 | 66 | 179 | 109.2 | 2.7 | 53 | 173 | 91.4 (-20%) | 3.3 (18%) | 124.0 (12%) | 2.9 (9%) |
0.6 | 0.75 | 27 | 76 | 46.1 | 2.6 | 27 | 67 | 39.4 (-17%) | 3.2 (18%) | 53.9 (14%) | 2.9 (10%) |
0.6 | 0.8 | 15 | 41 | 25.1 | 2.5 | 11 | 43 | 20.5 (-23%) | 3.1 (17%) | 28.9 (13%) | 2.8 (7%) |