This vignette demonstrates the lower-level routines in the simtrial package specifically related to trial generation and statistical testing.
The routines are as follows:
randomize_by_fixed_block()
- fixed block
randomizationrpwexp_enroll()
- random inter-arrival times with
piecewise constant enrollment ratesrpwexp()
- piecewise exponential failure rate
generationcut_data_by_date()
- cut data for analysis at a
specified calendar timecut_data_by_event()
- cut data for analysis at a
specified event count, including ties on the cutoff dateget_cut_date_by_event()
- find date at which an event
count is reachedcounting_process()
- pre-process survival data into a
counting process formatApplication of the above is demonstrated using higher-level routines
sim_pw_surv()
and sim_fixed_n()
to generate
simulations and weighted logrank analysis for a stratified design.
The intent has been to write these routines in the spirit of the tidyverse approach (alternately referred to as data wrangling, tidy data, R for Data Science, or split-apply-combine). The other objectives are to have an easily documentable and validated package that is easy to use and efficient as a broadly-useful tool for simulation of time-to-event clinical trials.
The package could be extended in many ways in the future, including:
Fixed block randomization with an arbitrary block contents is performed as demonstrated below. In this case we have a block size of 5 with one string repeated twice in each block and three other strings appearing once each.
randomize_by_fixed_block(n = 10, block = c("A", "Dog", "Cat", "Cat"))
#> [1] "Cat" "Cat" "A" "Dog" "Cat" "Cat" "Dog" "A" "Dog" "Cat"
More normally, with a default of blocks of size four:
Piecewise constant enrollment can be randomly generated as follows. Note that duration is specifies interval durations for constant rates; the final rate is extended as long as needed to generate the specified number of observations.
rpwexp_enroll(
n = 20,
enroll_rate = data.frame(
duration = c(1, 2),
rate = c(2, 5)
)
)
#> [1] 0.2447973 0.4380971 0.8612095 1.1413581 1.1989323 1.5872067 1.6325434
#> [8] 1.6647893 1.8136604 1.9181315 2.0372685 2.3017409 2.3240102 2.8257518
#> [15] 3.1450429 3.2953514 3.3423569 3.5583331 3.7639825 4.0224348
Time-to-event and time-to-dropout random number generation for observations is generated with piecewise exponential failure times. For a large number of observations, a log-plot of the time-to-failure
Ideally, this might be done with a routine where generation of
randomization, and time-to-event data could be done in a modular fashion
plugged into a general trial generation routine. For now, stratified
randomization, piecewise constant enrollment, fixed block randomization
and piecewise exponential failure rates support a flexible set of trial
generation options for time-to-event endpoint trials. At present, follow
this format very carefully as little checking of input has been
developed to-date. The methods used here have all be demonstrated above,
but here they are combined in a single routine to generate a trial. Note
that in the generated output dataset, cte
is the calendar
time of an event or dropout, whichever comes first, and
fail
is an indicator that cte
represents an
event time.
First we set up input variables to make the later call to
sim_pw_surv()
more straightforward to read.
stratum <- data.frame(stratum = c("Negative", "Positive"), p = c(.5, .5))
block <- c(rep("control", 2), rep("experimental", 2))
enroll_rate <- data.frame(rate = c(3, 6, 9), duration = c(3, 2, 1))
fail_rate <- data.frame(
stratum = c(rep("Negative", 4), rep("Positive", 4)),
period = rep(1:2, 4),
treatment = rep(c(rep("control", 2), rep("experimental", 2)), 2),
duration = rep(c(3, 1), 4),
rate = log(2) / c(4, 9, 4.5, 10, 4, 9, 8, 18)
)
dropout_rate <- data.frame(
stratum = c(rep("Negative", 4), rep("Positive", 4)),
period = rep(1:2, 4),
treatment = rep(c(rep("control", 2), rep("experimental", 2)), 2),
duration = rep(c(3, 1), 4),
rate = rep(c(.001, .001), 4)
)
x <- sim_pw_surv(
n = 400,
stratum = stratum,
block = block,
enroll_rate = enroll_rate,
fail_rate = fail_rate,
dropout_rate = dropout_rate
)
head(x) |>
gt() |>
fmt_number(columns = c("enroll_time", "fail_time", "dropout_time", "cte"), decimals = 2)
stratum | enroll_time | treatment | fail_time | dropout_time | cte | fail |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | 0.21 | experimental | 8.65 | 1,558.49 | 8.86 | 1 |
Positive | 0.33 | experimental | 30.96 | 630.77 | 31.29 | 1 |
Positive | 1.40 | control | 0.18 | 995.62 | 1.58 | 1 |
Negative | 1.51 | control | 0.70 | 985.93 | 2.22 | 1 |
Negative | 2.23 | control | 8.92 | 841.02 | 11.15 | 1 |
Negative | 2.47 | experimental | 0.21 | 18.72 | 2.68 | 1 |
There two ways to cut off data in the generated dataset
x
from above. The first uses a calendar cutoff date. The
output only includes the time from randomization to event or dropout
(tte
), and indicator that this represents and event
(event
), the stratum in which the observation was generated
(stratum
) and the treatment group assigned
(treatment
). Observations enrolled after the input
cut_date
are deleted and events and censoring from
x
that are after the cut_date
are censored at
the specified cut_date
.
tte | event | stratum | treatment |
---|---|---|---|
4.79 | 0 | Negative | experimental |
4.67 | 0 | Positive | experimental |
0.18 | 1 | Positive | control |
0.70 | 1 | Negative | control |
2.77 | 0 | Negative | control |
0.21 | 1 | Negative | experimental |
For instance, if we wish to cut the entire dataset when 50 events are
observed in the Positive stratum we can use the
get_cut_date_by_event
function as follows:
cut50Positive <- get_cut_date_by_event(filter(x, stratum == "Positive"), 50)
y50Positive <- cut_data_by_date(x, cut50Positive)
with(y50Positive, table(stratum, event))
#> event
#> stratum 0 1
#> Negative 47 66
#> Positive 57 50
Perhaps the most common way to cut data is with an event count for
the overall population, which is done using the
cut_data_by_event
function. Note that if there are tied
events at the date the cte
the count is reached, all are
included. Also, if the count is never reached, all event times are
included in the cut - with no indication of an error.
Once we have cut data for analysis, we can create a dataset that is
very simple to use for weighted logrank tests. A slightly more complex
version could be developed in the future to enable Kaplan-Meier-based
tests. We take the dataset y150
from above and process it
into this format. The counting process format is further discussed in
the next section where we compute a weighted logrank test.
ten150 <- counting_process(y150, arm = "experimental")
head(ten150) |>
gt() |>
fmt_number(columns = c("tte", "o_minus_e", "var_o_minus_e"), decimals = 2)
stratum | events | n_event_tol | tte | n_risk_tol | n_risk_trt | s | o_minus_e | var_o_minus_e |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | 1 | 1 | 0.06 | 130 | 65 | 1.0000000 | 0.50 | 0.25 |
Negative | 1 | 0 | 0.17 | 128 | 64 | 0.9923077 | −0.50 | 0.25 |
Negative | 1 | 0 | 0.18 | 127 | 64 | 0.9845553 | −0.50 | 0.25 |
Negative | 1 | 1 | 0.21 | 126 | 64 | 0.9768029 | 0.49 | 0.25 |
Negative | 1 | 1 | 0.21 | 125 | 63 | 0.9690505 | 0.50 | 0.25 |
Negative | 1 | 0 | 0.38 | 123 | 61 | 0.9612981 | −0.50 | 0.25 |
Now stratified logrank and stratified weighted logrank tests are
easily generated based on the counting process format. Each record in
the counting process dataset represents a tte
at which one
or more events occurs; the results are stratum-specific. Included in the
observation is the number of such events overall (events
)
and in the experimental treatment group (txevents
), the
number at risk overall (atrisk
) and in the experimental
treatment group (txatrisk
) just before tte
,
the combined treatment group Kaplan-Meier survival estimate
(left-continuous) at tte
, the observed events in
experimental group minus the expected at tte
based on an
assumption that all at risk observations are equally likely to have an
event at any time, and the variance for this quantity
(Var
).
To generate a stratified logrank test and a corresponding one-sided p-value, we simply do the following:
z <- with(ten150, sum(o_minus_e) / sqrt(sum(var_o_minus_e)))
c(z, pnorm(z))
#> [1] -0.7193799 0.2359535
A Fleming-Harrington \(\rho=1\), \(\gamma=2\) is nearly as simple. We again compute a z-statistic and its corresponding one-sided p-value.
xx <- mutate(ten150, w = s * (1 - s)^2)
z <- with(xx, sum(o_minus_e * w) / sum(sqrt(var_o_minus_e * w^2)))
c(z, pnorm(z))
#> [1] -0.01961574 0.49217496
For Fleming-Harrington tests, a routine has been built to do these tests for you:
fh00 <- y150 |> wlr(weight = fh(rho = 0, gamma = 0))
fh01 <- y150 |> wlr(weight = fh(rho = 0, gamma = 1))
fh10 <- y150 |> wlr(weight = fh(rho = 1, gamma = 0))
fh11 <- y150 |> wlr(weight = fh(rho = 1, gamma = 1))
temp_tbl <- fh00 |>
unlist() |>
as.data.frame() |>
cbind(fh01 |> unlist() |> as.data.frame()) |>
cbind(fh10 |> unlist() |> as.data.frame()) |>
cbind(fh11 |> unlist() |> as.data.frame())
colnames(temp_tbl) <- c("Test 1", "Test 2", "Test 3", "Test 4")
temp_tbl
#> Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
#> method WLR WLR WLR
#> parameter FH(rho=0, gamma=0) FH(rho=0, gamma=1) FH(rho=1, gamma=0)
#> estimation -4.3680382958728 -0.487102597620562 -3.88093569825224
#> se 6.07194965769659 2.24485101526141 4.3605070085087
#> z -0.719379860196309 -0.216986603702892 -0.890019369463077
#> Test 4
#> method WLR
#> parameter FH(rho=1, gamma=1)
#> estimation -0.544175279271521
#> se 1.14814409403658
#> z -0.473960787759958
If we wanted to take the minimum of these for a MaxCombo test, we
would first use fh_weight()
to compute a correlation matrix
for the above z-statistics as follows. Note that the ordering of
rho_gamma
and g
in the argument list is
opposite of the above. The correlation matrix for the
z
-values is now in V1
-V4
. We can
compute a p-value for the MaxCombo as follows using
mvtnorm::pmvnorm()
. Note the arguments for
GenzBretz()
which are more stringent than the defaults; we
have also used these more stringent parameters in the example in the
help file.
The sim_fixed_n()
routine combines much of the above to
go straight to generating tests for individual trials so that cutting
data and analyzing do not need to be done separately. Here the argument
structure is meant to be simpler than for
sim_pw_surv()
.
stratum <- data.frame(stratum = "All", p = 1)
enroll_rate <- data.frame(
duration = c(2, 2, 10),
rate = c(3, 6, 9)
)
fail_rate <- data.frame(
stratum = "All",
duration = c(3, 100),
fail_rate = log(2) / c(9, 18),
hr = c(0.9, 0.6),
dropout_rate = rep(0.001, 2)
)
block <- rep(c("experimental", "control"), 2)
rho_gamma <- data.frame(rho = 0, gamma = 0)
Now we simulate a trial 2 times and cut data for analysis based on
timing_type = 1:5
which translates to:
sim_fixed_n(
n_sim = 2, # Number of simulations
sample_size = 500, # Trial sample size
target_event = 350, # Targeted events at analysis
stratum = stratum, # Study stratum
enroll_rate = enroll_rate, # Enrollment rates
fail_rate = fail_rate, # Failure rates
total_duration = 30, # Planned trial duration
block = block, # Block for treatment
timing_type = 1:5, # Use all possible data cutoff methods
rho_gamma = rho_gamma # FH test(s) to use; in this case, logrank
) |>
gt() |>
fmt_number(columns = c("ln_hr", "z", "duration"))
#> Backend uses sequential processing.
method | parameter | estimation | se | z | event | ln_hr | cut | duration | sim |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -9.421199 | 5.167395 | −1.82 | 107 | −0.36 | Planned duration | 30.00 | 1 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.415307 | 9.226372 | −4.49 | 350 | −0.48 | Targeted events | 67.19 | 1 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -46.927432 | 9.352622 | −5.02 | 361 | −0.53 | Minimum follow-up | 72.17 | 1 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.415307 | 9.226372 | −4.49 | 350 | −0.48 | Max(planned duration, event cut) | 67.19 | 1 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -46.927432 | 9.352622 | −5.02 | 361 | −0.53 | Max(min follow-up, event cut) | 72.17 | 1 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -3.272526 | 5.212866 | −0.63 | 109 | −0.12 | Planned duration | 30.00 | 2 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.231880 | 9.235871 | −4.46 | 350 | −0.48 | Targeted events | 67.29 | 2 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.597357 | 9.388460 | −4.43 | 362 | −0.47 | Minimum follow-up | 69.47 | 2 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.231880 | 9.235871 | −4.46 | 350 | −0.48 | Max(planned duration, event cut) | 67.29 | 2 |
WLR | FH(rho=0, gamma=0) | -41.597357 | 9.388460 | −4.43 | 362 | −0.47 | Max(min follow-up, event cut) | 69.47 | 2 |
If you look carefully, you should be asking why the cutoff with the
planned number of events is so different than the other data cutoff
methods. To explain, we note that generally you will want
sample_size
above to match the enrollment specified in
enroll_rate
:
enroll_rate |> summarize(
"Targeted enrollment based on input enrollment rates" = sum(duration * rate)
)
#> Targeted enrollment based on input enrollment rates
#> 1 108
The targeted enrollment takes, on average, 30 months longer than the
sum of the enrollment durations in enroll_rate
(14 months)
at the input enrollment rates. To achieve the input
sample_size
of 500, the final enrollment rate is assumed to
be steady state and extends in each simulation until the targeted
enrollment is achieved. The planned duration of the trial is taken as 30
months as specified in total_duration
. The targeted minimum
follow-up is
It is thus, implicit that the last subject was enrolled 16 months
prior to the duration given for the cutoff with “Minimum follow-up”
cutoff in the simulations above. The planned duration cutoff is given in
the total_duration
argument which results in a much earlier
cutoff.