ABSTRACT
What can be considered an appropriate statistical method for the primary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a time-to-event endpoint when we anticipate non-proportional hazards owing to a delayed effect? This question has been the subject of much recent debate. The standard approach is a log-rank test and/or a Cox proportional hazards model. Alternative methods have been explored in the statistical literature, such as weighted log-rank tests and tests based on the Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST). While weighted log-rank tests can achieve high power compared to the standard log-rank test, some choices of weights may lead to type-I error inflation under particular conditions. In addition, they are not linked to a mathematically unambiguous summary measure. Test statistics based on the RMST, on the other hand, allow one to investigate the average difference between two survival curves up to a pre-specified time point τ $$ \tau $$ -a mathematically unambiguous summary measure. However, by emphasizing differences prior to τ $$ \tau $$ , such test statistics may not fully capture the benefit of a new treatment in terms of long-term survival. In this article, we introduce a graphical approach for direct comparison of weighted log-rank tests and tests based on the RMST. This new perspective allows a more informed choice of the analysis method, going beyond power and type I error comparison.