» Articles » PMID: 22700865

A 2-stage Phase II Design with Direct Assignment Option in Stage II for Initial Marker Validation

Overview
Journal Clin Cancer Res
Specialty Oncology
Date 2012 Jun 16
PMID 22700865
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Biomarkers are critical to targeted therapies, as they may identify patients more likely to benefit from a treatment. Several prospective designs for biomarker-directed therapy have been previously proposed, differing primarily in the study population, randomization scheme, or both. Recognizing the need for randomization, yet acknowledging the possibility of promising but inconclusive results after a stage I cohort of randomized patients, we propose a 2-stage phase II design on marker-positive patients that allows for direct assignment in a stage II cohort. In stage I, marker-positive patients are equally randomized to receive experimental treatment or control. Stage II has the option to adopt "direct assignment" whereby all patients receive experimental treatment. Through simulation, we studied the power and type I error rate of our design compared with a balanced randomized two-stage design, and conducted sensitivity analyses to study the effect of timing of stage I analysis, population shift effects, and unbalanced randomization. Our proposed design has minimal loss in power (<1.8%) and increased type I error rate (<2.1%) compared with a balanced randomized design. The maximum increase in type I error rate in the presence of a population shift was between 3.1% and 5%, and the loss in power across possible timings of stage I analysis was less than 1.2%. Our proposed design has desirable statistical properties with potential appeal in practice. The direct assignment option, if adopted, provides for an "extended confirmation phase" as an alternative to stopping the trial early for evidence of efficacy in stage I.

Citing Articles

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.


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

Antoniou M, Jorgensen A, Kolamunnage-Dona R PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0149803.

PMID: 26910238 PMC: 4766245. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149803.


Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers.

Renfro L, Mallick H, An M, Sargent D, Mandrekar S Cancer Treat Rev. 2016; 43:74-82.

PMID: 26827695 PMC: 4737867. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.12.008.


Molecular and clinical implementations of ovarian cancer mouse avatar models.

Zayed A, Mandrekar S, Haluska P Chin Clin Oncol. 2015; 4(3):30.

PMID: 26408297 PMC: 4750944. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2015.04.01.


The direct assignment option as a modular design component: an example for the setting of two predefined subgroups.

An M, Lu X, Sargent D, Mandrekar S Comput Math Methods Med. 2015; 2015:210817.

PMID: 25649690 PMC: 4310446. DOI: 10.1155/2015/210817.


References
1.
Kola I, Landis J . Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004; 3(8):711-5. DOI: 10.1038/nrd1470. View

2.
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

3.
Simon R, Wang S . Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases. Pharmacogenomics J. 2006; 6(3):166-73. DOI: 10.1038/sj.tpj.6500349. View

4.
Acquaviva J, Smith D, Sang J, Friedland J, He S, Sequeira M . Targeting KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with the Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012; 11(12):2633-43. DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0615. View

5.
Avis N, Smith K, Link C, Hortobagyi G, Rivera E . Factors associated with participation in breast cancer treatment clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(12):1860-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.8976. View