Non-proportional hazards in immuno-oncology: is an old perspective needed?

In my opinion, many phase III trials in immuno-oncology are 10–20 % larger than they need (ought) to be.

This is because the method we use for the primary analysis doesn’t match what we know about how these drugs work.

Fixing this doesn’t require anything fancy, just old-school stats from the 1960s.

In this new preprint I try to explain how I think it should be done.

Dominic Magirr
Medical Statistician

Interested in the design, analysis and interpretation of clinical trials.