Testing for Differences in Survival When Treatment Effects Are Persistent, Decaying, or Delayed

Abstract

A statistical test for the presence of treatment effects on survival will be based on a null hypothesis (absence of effects) and an alternative (presence of effects). The null is very simply expressed. The most common alternative, also simply expressed, is that of proportional hazards. For this situation, not only do we have a very powerful test in the log-rank test but also the outcome is readily interpreted. However, many modern treatments fall outside this relatively straightforward paradigm and, as such, have attracted attention from statisticians eager to do their best to avoid losing power as well as to maintain interpretability when the alternative hypothesis is less simple. Examples include trials where the treatment effect decays with time, immunotherapy trials where treatment effects may be slow to manifest themselves as well as the so-called crossing hazards problem. We review some of the solutions that have been proposed to deal with these issues. We pay particular attention to the integrated log-rank test and how it can be combined with the log-rank test itself to obtain powerful tests for these more complex situations.