Noninferiority trials in oncology assess novel therapies with the potential for slightly worse recurrence or death outcomes (ie, the margin of noninferiority) than standard therapies. This poses a dilemma because, in the absence of potential health outcome advantages, these trials may not provide the treatment equipoise required for an ethical study. Any new treatment with the potential for slightly worse recurrence or death outcomes should have countervailing health outcome advantages, but these are rarely taken into account in the design of noninferiority trials. This article presents the argument that not only the potentially worse health outcomes but also the potential benefits of the novel therapy should be considered when designing, analyzing, and reporting noninferiority trials. Some approaches to study design and analysis that consider both primary and secondary end points are discussed, and reporting the joint distributions of end points for the novel and standard treatments is recommended.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Jatoi I, Gail MH. The Need for Combined Assessment of Multiple Outcomes in Noninferiority Trials in Oncology. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(3):420–424. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5361
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.