Abstract
The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) randomized trial of gastric surgery, ST01, compared conventional (D1) with radical (D2) surgery. Sample size estimation was based upon the consensus opinion of the surgical members of the design team, which suggested that a change in 5-year survival from 20% (D1) to 34% (D2) could be realistic and medically important. On the basis of these survival rates, the sample size for the trial was 400 patients. However, this trial was exceptional in the way that a survey of surgeons’ opinions was made at the start of the trial, in 1986, and again before results were analysed but after termination of the trial in 1994. At the initial survey, the three surgeons from the trial steering committee and 23 other surgeons experienced in treating gastric carcinoma were given detailed questionnaires. They were asked about the expected survival rate in the D1 group, anticipated difference in survival from D2 surgery, and what difference would be medically important and influence future treatment of patients. The consensus opinion of those surveyed was that there might be a survival improvement of 9.4%. In 1994, prior to closure of the trial, and before any survival information was disclosed, the survey was repeated with 21 of the original 26 surgeons. At this second survey, the opinion of the trial steering committee was that 9.5% difference was more realistic. This was in accord with the opinion of the larger group, which remained little changed since 1986. The baseline 5-year D1 survival was thought likely to be about 32%, which corresponded closely to the actual survival of recruited patients. Revised sample size calculations suggested that, on the basis of these more recent opinions, between 800 and 1200 patients would have been required. Both surveys assessed the level of treatment benefit that was deemed to be sufficient for causing surgeons to change their practice. This showed that the 13% difference in survival used as the study target was clinically relevant, but also indicated that many clinicians would remain unwilling to change their practice if the difference is only 9.5%. The experience of this carefully designed trial illustrates the problems of designing long-term, randomized trials. It raises interesting questions about the common practice of basing sample size estimates upon the beliefs of a trial design committee that may include a number of enthusiasts for the trial treatment. If their opinion of anticipated effect sizes drives the design of the trial, rather than the opinion of a larger community of experts that includes sceptics as well as enthusiasts, there is likely to be a serious miscalculation of sample size requirements. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Change history
16 November 2011
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Cuschieri A, Fayers PM, Fielding JWL, Craven JL, Bancewicz J, Joypaul V and Cook P (1996) Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer – results of the MRC randomised controlled trial. Lancet 347: 995–999
Cuschieri A, Weeden S, Fielding J, Banciewicz J, Craven J, Joypaul V, Sydes M and Fayers P for the Surgical Cooperative Group (1999) Patient survival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomised surgical trial. Br J Cancer 79: 1522–1530
Fayers PM and Machin D (1995) Sample size: how many patients are necessary? Br J Cancer 72: 1–9
Fayers PM, Ashby D and Parmar MKB (1997) Tutorial in biostatistics: Bayesian data monitoring in clinical trials. Stat Med 16: 1413–1430
Machin D, Campbell MJ, Fayers PM and Pinol A (1997). Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies, Blackwell Science: Oxford
Maruyama K, Okabayashi K and Kinoshita T (1987) Progress in gastric cancer surgery and its limits of radicality. World J Surg 11: 418–426
Parmar MKB, Spiegelhalter DJ and Freedman LS (1994) The CHART trials: Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. Stat Med 13: 1297–1312
Spiegelhalter DJ and Freedman LS (1986) a predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based upon subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med 5: 1–13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Fayers, P., Cuschieri, A., Fielding, J. et al. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer 82, 213–219 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0902
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0902
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Minimum important difference is minimally important in sample size calculations
Trials (2023)
-
Response (minimum clinically relevant change) in ASD symptoms after an intervention according to CARS-2: consensus from an expert elicitation procedure
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2022)
-
DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial
Trials (2018)
-
Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers
Trials (2015)
-
The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance – a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials
BMC Medical Research Methodology (2014)