The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods

Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods
Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods

BACKGROUND: In judging whether or not to continue enrolling patients into a randomised clinical trial, most data-monitoring and ethics committees (DMECs) rely on the p value for the difference in effect between the study groups. In the 1990s, two randomised controlled trials-one in patients with lung cancer and one in those with head and neck cancer-were instead monitored by Bayesian methods. We assessed the value of this approach in the monitoring of these clinical trials.

METHODS: Before the trials opened, participating clinicians were asked their opinions on the expected difference between the study treatment (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy [CHART]) and conventional radiotherapy. These opinions were used to form an "enthusiastic" and a "sceptical" prior distribution. These prior distributions were combined with the trial data at each of the annual DMEC meetings. If, during monitoring, a result in favour of CHART was seen, the DMEC was to decide whether the results were sufficiently convincing to persuade a sceptic that CHART was worthwhile. Conversely, if there was apparently no or little difference, the DMEC was asked whether they thought the results sufficiently convincing to persuade an enthusiast that CHART was not worthwhile.

FINDINGS: At each of the annual meetings, the DMEC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convert either sceptics or enthusiasts, and that the trials should therefore remain open to recruitment. Neither trial was closed to recruitment earlier than planned. However if a conventional (p-value-based) stopping rule had been used, the lung-cancer trial would probably have been stopped.

INTERPRETATION: This Bayesian approach to monitoring is simple to implement and straightforward for members of the DMEC to understand. In our opinion, it is more intuitively appealing than conventional approaches.

Bayes Theorem, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Patient Selection, Radiotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Journal Article
0140-6736
375-81
Parmar, Mahesh K.B.
5574463d-506e-499e-9381-6130f1ef7dbe
Griffiths, Gareth O.
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Spiegelhalter, David J.
14dba7a4-18f0-48f5-b1f6-8d4a07040778
Souhami, Robert L.
2352f140-fc1f-4baa-8b99-908fe11a429b
Altman, Douglas G.
f0d739a4-dc94-44d1-a497-603a3ed7d7e6
van der Scheuren, Emmanuel
89f757d3-e5e3-4454-8864-b5472b37aa08
CHART steering committee
Parmar, Mahesh K.B.
5574463d-506e-499e-9381-6130f1ef7dbe
Griffiths, Gareth O.
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Spiegelhalter, David J.
14dba7a4-18f0-48f5-b1f6-8d4a07040778
Souhami, Robert L.
2352f140-fc1f-4baa-8b99-908fe11a429b
Altman, Douglas G.
f0d739a4-dc94-44d1-a497-603a3ed7d7e6
van der Scheuren, Emmanuel
89f757d3-e5e3-4454-8864-b5472b37aa08

Parmar, Mahesh K.B., Griffiths, Gareth O., Spiegelhalter, David J., Souhami, Robert L., Altman, Douglas G. and van der Scheuren, Emmanuel , CHART steering committee (2001) Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods. The Lancet, 358 (9279), 375-81. (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05558-1).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In judging whether or not to continue enrolling patients into a randomised clinical trial, most data-monitoring and ethics committees (DMECs) rely on the p value for the difference in effect between the study groups. In the 1990s, two randomised controlled trials-one in patients with lung cancer and one in those with head and neck cancer-were instead monitored by Bayesian methods. We assessed the value of this approach in the monitoring of these clinical trials.

METHODS: Before the trials opened, participating clinicians were asked their opinions on the expected difference between the study treatment (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy [CHART]) and conventional radiotherapy. These opinions were used to form an "enthusiastic" and a "sceptical" prior distribution. These prior distributions were combined with the trial data at each of the annual DMEC meetings. If, during monitoring, a result in favour of CHART was seen, the DMEC was to decide whether the results were sufficiently convincing to persuade a sceptic that CHART was worthwhile. Conversely, if there was apparently no or little difference, the DMEC was asked whether they thought the results sufficiently convincing to persuade an enthusiast that CHART was not worthwhile.

FINDINGS: At each of the annual meetings, the DMEC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convert either sceptics or enthusiasts, and that the trials should therefore remain open to recruitment. Neither trial was closed to recruitment earlier than planned. However if a conventional (p-value-based) stopping rule had been used, the lung-cancer trial would probably have been stopped.

INTERPRETATION: This Bayesian approach to monitoring is simple to implement and straightforward for members of the DMEC to understand. In our opinion, it is more intuitively appealing than conventional approaches.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 4 August 2001
Keywords: Bayes Theorem, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Patient Selection, Radiotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Journal Article
Organisations: Clinical Trials Unit

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 406319
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/406319
ISSN: 0140-6736
PURE UUID: d98b734c-2b7a-454b-af1e-21df409b23bf
ORCID for Gareth O. Griffiths: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9579-8021

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Mar 2017 10:44
Last modified: 16 Aug 2024 01:48

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mahesh K.B. Parmar
Author: David J. Spiegelhalter
Author: Robert L. Souhami
Author: Douglas G. Altman
Author: Emmanuel van der Scheuren
Corporate Author: CHART steering committee

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×