Which test for crossing survival curves? A user's guideline.

BACKGROUND: The exchange of knowledge between statisticians developing new methodology and clinicians, reviewers or authors applying them is fundamental. This is specifically true for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. Thereby, one of the most commonly arising questions is that of equal survival distributions in two-armed trial. The log-rank test is still the gold-standard to infer this question. However, in case of non-proportional hazards, its power can become poor and multiple extensions have been developed to overcome this issue. We aim to facilitate the choice of a test for the detection of survival differences in the case of crossing hazards. METHODS: We restricted the review to the most recent two-armed clinical oncology trials with crossing survival curves. Each data set was reconstructed using a state-of-the-art reconstruction algorithm. To ensure reproduction quality, only publications with published number at risk at multiple time points, sufficient printing quality and a non-informative censoring pattern were included. This article depicts the p-values of the log-rank and Peto-Peto test as references and compares them with nine different tests developed for detection of survival differences in the presence of non-proportional or crossing hazards. RESULTS: We reviewed 1400 recent phase III clinical oncology trials and selected fifteen studies that met our eligibility criteria for data reconstruction. After including further three individual patient data sets, for nine out of eighteen studies significant differences in survival were found using the investigated tests. An important point that reviewers should pay attention to is that 28% of the studies with published survival curves did not report the number at risk. This makes reconstruction and plausibility checks almost impossible. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation shows that inference methods constructed to detect differences in survival in presence of non-proportional hazards are beneficial and help to provide guidance in choosing a sensible alternative to the standard log-rank test.

TEAD-YAP Interaction Inhibitors and MDM2 Binders from DNA-Encoded Indole-Focused Ugi Peptidomimetics.

DNA-encoded combinatorial synthesis provides efficient and dense coverage of chemical space around privileged molecular structures. The indole side chain of tryptophan plays a prominent role in key, or "hot spot", regions of protein-protein interactions. A DNA-encoded combinatorial peptoid library was designed based on the Ugi four-component reaction by employing tryptophan-mimetic indole side chains to probe the surface of target proteins. Several peptoids were synthesized on a chemically stable hexathymidine adapter oligonucleotide "hexT", encoded by DNA sequences, and substituted by azide-alkyne cycloaddition to yield a library of 8112 molecules. Selection experiments for the tumor-relevant proteins MDM2 and TEAD4 yielded MDM2 binders and a novel class of TEAD-YAP interaction inhibitors that perturbed the expression of a gene under the control of these Hippo pathway effectors.

A comparative study to alternatives to the log-rank test.

BACKGROUND: Studies to compare the survival of two or more groups using time-to-event data are of high importance in medical research. The gold standard is the log-rank test, which is optimal under proportional hazards. As the latter is no simple regularity assumption, we are interested in evaluating the power of various statistical tests under different settings including proportional and non-proportional hazards with a special emphasis on crossing hazards. This challenge has been going on for many years now and multiple methods have already been investigated in extensive simulation studies. However, in recent years new omnibus tests and methods based on the restricted mean survival time appeared that have been strongly recommended in biometric literature. METHODS: Thus, to give updated recommendations, we perform a vast simulation study to compare tests that showed high power in previous studies with these more recent approaches. We thereby analyze various simulation settings with varying survival and censoring distributions, unequal censoring between groups, small sample sizes and unbalanced group sizes. RESULTS: Overall, omnibus tests are more robust in terms of power against deviations from the proportional hazards assumption. CONCLUSION: We recommend considering the more robust omnibus approaches for group comparison in case of uncertainty about the underlying survival time distributions.