» Articles » PMID: 26037094

Mixed Response and Time-to-event Endpoints for Multistage Single-arm Phase II Design

Overview
Journal Trials
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2015 Jun 4
PMID 26037094
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The objective of phase II cancer clinical trials is to determine if a treatment has sufficient activity to warrant further study. The efficiency of a conventional phase II trial design has been the object of considerable debate, particularly when the study regimen is characteristically cytostatic. At the time of development of a phase II cancer trial, we accumulated clinical experience regarding the time to progression (TTP) for similar classes of drugs and for standard therapy. By considering the time to event (TTE) in addition to the tumor response endpoint, a mixed-endpoint phase II design may increase the efficiency and ability of selecting promising cytotoxic and cytostatic agents for further development.

Methods: We proposed a single-arm phase II trial design by extending the Zee multinomial method to fully use mixed endpoints with tumor response and the TTE. In this design, the dependence between the probability of response and the TTE outcome is modeled through a Gaussian copula.

Results: Given the type I and type II errors and the hypothesis as defined by the response rate (RR) and median TTE, such as median TTP, the decision rules for a two-stage phase II trial design can be generated. We demonstrated through simulation that the proposed design has a smaller expected sample size and higher early stopping probability under the null hypothesis than designs based on a single-response endpoint or a single TTE endpoint.

Conclusions: The proposed design is more efficient for screening new cytotoxic or cytostatic agents and less likely to miss an effective agent than the alternative single-arm design.

Citing Articles

A novel Bayesian adaptive design incorporating both primary and secondary endpoints for randomized IIB chemoprevention study of women at increased risk for breast cancer.

Gajewski B, Kimler B, Koestler D, Mudaranthakam D, Young K, Fabian C Trials. 2022; 23(1):981.

PMID: 36471449 PMC: 9721008. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06930-5.


A class of two-sample nonparametric statistics for binary and time-to-event outcomes.

Bofill Roig M, Melis G Stat Methods Med Res. 2021; 31(2):225-239.

PMID: 34870495 PMC: 8829729. DOI: 10.1177/09622802211048030.

References
1.
Case L, Morgan T . Design of Phase II cancer trials evaluating survival probabilities. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3:6. PMC: 161809. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-6. View

2.
Siegel A, Cohen E, Ocean A, Lehrer D, Goldenberg A, Knox J . Phase II trial evaluating the clinical and biologic effects of bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(18):2992-8. PMC: 3635806. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.9947. View

3.
Sun L, Chen C, Patel K . Optimal two-stage randomized multinomial designs for Phase II oncology trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2009; 19(3):485-93. DOI: 10.1080/10543400902802417. View

4.
Fleming T . One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics. 1982; 38(1):143-51. View

5.
Yau T, Wong H, Chan P, Yao T, Pang R, Cheung T . Phase II study of bevacizumab and erlotinib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients with sorafenib-refractory disease. Invest New Drugs. 2012; 30(6):2384-90. PMC: 3484314. DOI: 10.1007/s10637-012-9808-8. View