» Articles » PMID: 21532916

All-comers Versus Enrichment Design Strategy in Phase II Trials

Overview
Journal J Thorac Oncol
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2011 May 3
PMID 21532916
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Designs for biomarker validation have been proposed and utilized in the Phase III oncology clinical trial setting. Broadly speaking, these designs follow either an enrichment (i.e., targeted) strategy or an all-comers (i.e., unselected) strategy. An enrichment design screens patients for the presence or absence of a marker or a panel of markers, and then only includes patients who either have or do not have a certain marker characteristic or profile. In contrast, all patients meeting the eligibility criteria (regardless of a particular biomarker status) are entered into an all-comers design. The strength of the preliminary evidence, the prevalence of the marker, the reproducibility and validity of the assay and the feasibility of real time marker assessment play a major role in the choice of the design. In this report, we discuss the parameters under which the enrichment or an all-comers design strategy would be appropriate for Phase II trials.

Citing Articles

Combining explainable machine learning, demographic and multi-omic data to inform precision medicine strategies for inflammatory bowel disease.

Gardiner L, Carrieri A, Bingham K, Macluskie G, Bunton D, McNeil M PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0263248.

PMID: 35196350 PMC: 8865677. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263248.


Application of pharmacogenomics and bioinformatics to exemplify the utility of human ex vivo organoculture models in the field of precision medicine.

Cowan K, Macluskie G, Finch M, Palmer C, Hair J, Bylesjo M PLoS One. 2019; 14(12):e0226564.

PMID: 31860681 PMC: 6924641. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226564.


Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Antoniou M, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Jorgensen A J Pers Med. 2017; 7(1).

PMID: 28125057 PMC: 5374391. DOI: 10.3390/jpm7010001.


Methods for identification and confirmation of targeted subgroups in clinical trials: A systematic review.

Ondra T, Dmitrienko A, Friede T, Graf A, Miller F, Stallard N J Biopharm Stat. 2015; 26(1):99-119.

PMID: 26378339 PMC: 4732423. DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2015.1092034.


Can a combined screening/treatment programme prevent premature failure of renal transplants due to chronic rejection in patients with HLA antibodies: study protocol for the multicentre randomised controlled OuTSMART trial.

Dorling A, Rebollo-Mesa I, Hilton R, Peacock J, Vaughan R, Gardner L Trials. 2014; 15:30.

PMID: 24447519 PMC: 3906093. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-30.


References
1.
Mandrekar S, Sargent D . Randomized phase II trials: time for a new era in clinical trial design. J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5(7):932-4. PMC: 2941394. DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181e2eadf. View

2.
Barker A, Sigman C, Kelloff G, Hylton N, Berry D, Esserman L . I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 86(1):97-100. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2009.68. View

3.
Simon R, Maitournam A . Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10(20):6759-63. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0496. View

4.
Simon R, Paik S, Hayes D . Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(21):1446-52. PMC: 2782246. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp335. View

5.
Stewart D, Whitney S, Kurzrock R . Equipoise lost: ethics, costs, and the regulation of cancer clinical research. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(17):2925-35. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.5404. View