Two‐stage phase II survival trial design

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression‐free survival or event‐free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two‐stage single‐arm phase II trials with a time‐to‐event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two‐stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two‐stage design can be routinely used for single‐arm phase II trial designs with a time‐to‐event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two‐stage design for the binary outcome.     

Cancer immunotherapy trial design with delayed treatment effect

A challenge arising in cancer immunotherapy trial design is the presence of a delayed treatment effect wherein the proportional hazard assumption no longer holds true. As a result, a traditional survival trial design based on the standard log‐rank test, which ignores the delayed treatment effect, will lead to substantial loss of statistical power. Recently, a piecewise weighted log‐rank test is proposed to incorporate the delayed treatment effect into consideration of the trial design. However, because the sample size formula was derived under a sequence of local alternative hypotheses, it results in an underestimated sample size when the hazard ratio is relatively small for a balanced trial design and an inaccurate sample size estimation for an unbalanced design. In this article, we derived a new sample size formula under a fixed alternative hypothesis for the delayed treatment effect model. Simulation results show that the new formula provides accurate sample size estimation for both balanced and unbalanced designs.     

Study design of single‐arm phase II immunotherapy trials with long‐term survivors and random delayed treatment effect

In the traditional study design of a single‐arm phase II cancer clinical trial, the one‐sample log‐rank test has been frequently used. A common practice in sample size calculation is to assume that the event time in the new treatment follows exponential distribution. Such a study design may not be suitable for immunotherapy cancer trials, when both long‐term survivors (or even cured patients from the disease) and delayed treatment effect are present, because exponential distribution is not appropriate to describe such data and consequently could lead to severely underpowered trial. In this research, we proposed a piecewise proportional hazards cure rate model with random delayed treatment effect to design single‐arm phase II immunotherapy cancer trials. To improve test power, we proposed a new weighted one‐sample log‐rank test and provided a sample size calculation formula for designing trials. Our simulation study showed that the proposed log‐rank test performs well and is robust of misspecified weight and the sample size calculation formula also performs well.     

Nested combination tests with a time‐to‐event endpoint using a short‐term endpoint for design adaptations

Adaptive trial methodology for multiarmed trials and enrichment designs has been extensively discussed in the past. A general principle to construct test procedures that control the family‐wise Type I error rate in the strong sense is based on combination tests within a closed test. Using survival data, a problem arises when using information of patients for adaptive decision making, which are under risk at interim. With the currently available testing procedures, either no testing of hypotheses in interim analyses is possible or there are restrictions on the interim data that can be used in the adaptation decisions as, essentially, only the interim test statistics of the primary endpoint may be used. We propose a general adaptive testing procedure, covering multiarmed and enrichment designs, which does not have these restrictions. An important application are clinical trials, where short‐term surrogate endpoints are used as basis for trial adaptations, and we illustrate how such trials can be designed. We propose statistical models to assess the impact of effect sizes, the correlation structure between the short‐term and the primary endpoint, the sample size, the timing of interim analyses, and the selection rule on the operating characteristics.     

Single‐arm phase II trial design under parametric cure models

The current practice of designing single‐arm phase II survival trials is limited under the exponential model. Trial design under the exponential model may not be appropriate when a portion of patients are cured. There is no literature available for designing single‐arm phase II trials under the parametric cure model. In this paper, a test statistic is proposed, and a sample size formula is derived for designing single‐arm phase II trials under a class of parametric cure models. Extensive simulations showed that the proposed test and sample size formula perform very well under different scenarios. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size calculation for recurrent events data in one‐arm studies

In some exceptional circumstances, as in very rare diseases, nonrandomized one‐arm trials are the sole source of evidence to demonstrate efficacy and safety of a new treatment. The design of such studies needs a sound methodological approach in order to provide reliable information, and the determination of the appropriate sample size still represents a critical step of this planning process. As, to our knowledge, no method exists for sample size calculation in one‐arm trials with a recurrent event endpoint, we propose here a closed sample size formula. It is derived assuming a mixed Poisson process, and it is based on the asymptotic distribution of the one‐sample robust nonparametric test recently developed for the analysis of recurrent events data. The validity of this formula in managing a situation with heterogeneity of event rates, both in time and between patients, and time‐varying treatment effect was demonstrated with exhaustive simulation studies. Moreover, although the method requires the specification of a process for events generation, it seems to be robust under erroneous definition of this process, provided that the number of events at the end of the study is similar to the one assumed in the planning phase. The motivating clinical context is represented by a nonrandomized one‐arm study on gene therapy in a very rare immunodeficiency in children (ADA‐SCID), where a major endpoint is the recurrence of severe infections. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bayesian single-to-double arm transition design using both short-term and long-term endpoints

The choice between single-arm designs versus randomized double-arm designs has been contentiously debated in the literature of phase II oncology trials. Recently, as a compromise, the single-to-double arm transition design was proposed, combining the two designs into one trial over two stages. Successful implementation of the two-stage transition design requires a suspension period at the end of the first stage to collect the response data of the already enrolled patients. When the evaluation of the primary efficacy endpoint is overly long, the between-stage suspension period may unfavorably prolong the trial duration and cause a delay in treating future eligible patients. To accelerate the trial, we propose a Bayesian single-to-double arm design with short-term endpoints (BSDS), where an intermediate short-term endpoint is used for making early termination decisions at the end of the single-arm stage, followed by an evaluation of the long-term endpoint at the end of the subsequent double-arm stage. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used as the primary decision-making tool at the end of the trial. Design calibration steps are proposed for this Bayesian monitoring process to control the frequentist operating characteristics and minimize the expected sample size. Extensive simulation studies have demonstrated that our design has comparable power and average sample size but a much shorter trial duration than conventional single-to-double arm design. Applications of the design are illustrated using two phase II oncology trials with binary endpoints.     

A convenient formula for sample size calculations in clinical trials with multiple co-primary continuous endpoints

The clinical efficacy of a new treatment may often be better evaluated by two or more co-primary endpoints. Recently, in pharmaceutical drug development, there has been increasing discussion regarding establishing statistically significant favorable results on more than one endpoint in comparisons between treatments, which is referred to as a problem of multiple co-primary endpoints. Several methods have been proposed for calculating the sample size required to design a trial with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints. However, because these methods require users to have considerable mathematical sophistication and knowledge of programming techniques, their application and spread may be restricted in practice. To improve the convenience of these methods, in this paper, we provide a useful formula with accompanying numerical tables for sample size calculations to design clinical trials with two treatments, where the efficacy of a new treatment is demonstrated on continuous co-primary endpoints. In addition, we provide some examples to illustrate the sample size calculations made using the formula. Using the formula and the tables, which can be read according to the patterns of correlations and effect size ratios expected in multiple co-primary endpoints, makes it convenient to evaluate the required sample size promptly.     

An investigation into the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula modelling approach for evaluating time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints which comprise of one or more events of interest

Clinical trials of experimental treatments must be designed with primary endpoints that directly measure clinical benefit for patients. In many disease areas, the recognised gold standard primary endpoint can take many years to mature, leading to challenges in the conduct and quality of clinical studies. There is increasing interest in using shorter‐term surrogate endpoints as substitutes for costly long‐term clinical trial endpoints; such surrogates need to be selected according to biological plausibility, as well as the ability to reliably predict the unobserved treatment effect on the long‐term endpoint. A number of statistical methods to evaluate this prediction have been proposed; this paper uses a simulation study to explore one such method in the context of time‐to‐event surrogates for a time‐to‐event true endpoint. This two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method has been extensively studied for time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints with one event of interest, but thus far has not been explored for the assessment of surrogates which have multiple events of interest, such as those incorporating information directly from the true clinical endpoint. We assess the sensitivity of the method to various factors including strength of association between endpoints, the quantity of data available, and the effect of censoring. In particular, we consider scenarios where there exist very little data on which to assess surrogacy. Results show that the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method performs well under certain circumstances and could be considered useful in practice, but demonstrates limitations that may prevent universal use.     

Testing multiple primary endpoints in clinical trials with sample size adaptation

In this paper, we propose a design that uses a short‐term endpoint for accelerated approval at interim analysis and a long‐term endpoint for full approval at final analysis with sample size adaptation based on the long‐term endpoint. Two sample size adaptation rules are compared: an adaptation rule to maintain the conditional power at a prespecified level and a step function type adaptation rule to better address the bias issue. Three testing procedures are proposed: alpha splitting between the two endpoints; alpha exhaustive between the endpoints; and alpha exhaustive with improved critical value based on correlation. Family‐wise error rate is proved to be strongly controlled for the two endpoints, sample size adaptation, and two analysis time points with the proposed designs. We show that using alpha exhaustive designs greatly improve the power when both endpoints are effective, and the power difference between the two adaptation rules is minimal. The proposed design can be extended to more general settings. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Accounting for informative non‐compliance with a bivariate exponential model in the design of endpoint trials

Failure to adjust for informative non‐compliance, a common phenomenon in endpoint trials, can lead to a considerably underpowered study. However, standard methods for sample size calculation assume that non‐compliance is non‐informative. One existing method to account for informative non‐compliance, based on a two‐subpopulation model, is limited with respect to the degree of association between the risk of non‐compliance and the risk of a study endpoint that can be modelled, and with respect to the maximum allowable rates of non‐compliance and endpoints. In this paper, we introduce a new method that largely overcomes these limitations. This method is based on a model in which time to non‐compliance and time to endpoint are assumed to follow a bivariate exponential distribution. Parameters of the distribution are obtained by equating them with the study design parameters. The impact of informative non‐compliance is investigated across a wide range of conditions, and the method is illustrated by recalculating the sample size of a published clinical trial. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis‐testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis‐testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease‐related agitation.     

Methodological issues with adaptation of clinical trial design

Adaptation of clinical trial design generates many issues that have not been resolved for practical applications, though statistical methodology has advanced greatly. This paper focuses on some methodological issues. In one type of adaptation such as sample size re-estimation, only the postulated value of a parameter for planning the trial size may be altered. In another type, the originally intended hypothesis for testing may be modified using the internal data accumulated at an interim time of the trial, such as changing the primary endpoint and dropping a treatment arm. For sample size re-estimation, we make a contrast between an adaptive test weighting the two-stage test statistics with the statistical information given by the original design and the original sample mean test with a properly corrected critical value. We point out the difficulty in planning a confirmatory trial based on the crude information generated by exploratory trials. In regards to selecting a primary endpoint, we argue that the selection process that allows switching from one endpoint to the other with the internal data of the trial is not very likely to gain a power advantage over the simple process of selecting one from the two endpoints by testing them with an equal split of alpha (Bonferroni adjustment). For dropping a treatment arm, distributing the remaining sample size of the discontinued arm to other treatment arms can substantially improve the statistical power of identifying a superior treatment arm in the design. A common difficult methodological issue is that of how to select an adaptation rule in the trial planning stage. Pre-specification of the adaptation rule is important for the practicality consideration. Changing the originally intended hypothesis for testing with the internal data generates great concerns to clinical trial researchers.     

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short‐term endpoints and prognostic baseline covariates

Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short‐term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short‐term endpoints. We will realize this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long‐term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short‐term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach enables earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size re‐assessment based on the inverse normal P‐value combination method to control Type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial.     

Sample size calculation for the one‐sample log‐rank test

In this paper, an exact variance of the one‐sample log‐rank test statistic is derived under the alternative hypothesis, and a sample size formula is proposed based on the derived exact variance. Simulation results showed that the proposed sample size formula provides adequate power to design a study to compare the survival of a single sample with that of a standard population. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Critical appraisal of Bayesian dynamic borrowing from an imperfectly commensurate historical control

Bayesian dynamic borrowing designs facilitate borrowing information from historical studies. Historical data, when perfectly commensurate with current data, have been shown to reduce the trial duration and the sample size, while inflation in the type I error and reduction in the power have been reported, when imperfectly commensurate. These results, however, were obtained without considering that Bayesian designs are calibrated to meet regulatory requirements in practice and even no‐borrowing designs may use information from historical data in the calibration. The implicit borrowing of historical data suggests that imperfectly commensurate historical data may similarly impact no‐borrowing designs negatively. We will provide a fair appraiser of Bayesian dynamic borrowing and no‐borrowing designs. We used a published selective adaptive randomization design and real clinical trial setting and conducted simulation studies under varying degrees of imperfectly commensurate historical control scenarios. The type I error was inflated under the null scenario of no intervention effect, while larger inflation was noted with borrowing. The larger inflation in type I error under the null setting can be offset by the greater probability to stop early correctly under the alternative. Response rates were estimated more precisely and the average sample size was smaller with borrowing. The expected increase in bias with borrowing was noted, but was negligible. Using Bayesian dynamic borrowing designs may improve trial efficiency by stopping trials early correctly and reducing trial length at the small cost of inflated type I error.     

Nonparametric covariate adjustment in estimating hazard ratios

In randomized clinical trials with time‐to‐event outcomes, the hazard ratio is commonly used to quantify the treatment effect relative to a control. The Cox regression model is commonly used to adjust for relevant covariates to obtain more accurate estimates of the hazard ratio between treatment groups. However, it is well known that the treatment hazard ratio based on a covariate‐adjusted Cox regression model is conditional on the specific covariates and differs from the unconditional hazard ratio that is an average across the population. Therefore, covariate‐adjusted Cox models cannot be used when the unconditional inference is desired. In addition, the covariate‐adjusted Cox model requires the relatively strong assumption of proportional hazards for each covariate. To overcome these challenges, a nonparametric randomization‐based analysis of covariance method was proposed to estimate the covariate‐adjusted hazard ratios for multivariate time‐to‐event outcomes. However, empirical evaluations of the performance (power and type I error rate) of the method have not been studied. Although the method is derived for multivariate situations, for most registration trials, the primary endpoint is a univariate outcome. Therefore, this approach is applied to univariate outcomes, and performance is evaluated through a simulation study in this paper. Stratified analysis is also investigated. As an illustration of the method, we also apply the covariate‐adjusted and unadjusted analyses to an oncology trial. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

SPIRIT: A seamless phase I/II randomized design for immunotherapy trials

Immunotherapy—treatments that enlist the immune system to battle tumors—has received widespread attention in cancer research. Due to its unique features and mechanisms for treating cancer, immunotherapy requires novel clinical trial designs. We propose a Bayesian seamless phase I/II randomized design for immunotherapy trials (SPIRIT) to find the optimal biological dose (OBD) defined in terms of the restricted mean survival time. We jointly model progression‐free survival and the immune response. Progression‐free survival is used as the primary endpoint to determine the OBD, and the immune response is used as an ancillary endpoint to quickly screen out futile doses. Toxicity is monitored throughout the trial. The design consists of two seamlessly connected stages. The first stage identifies a set of safe doses. The second stage adaptively randomizes patients to the safe doses identified and uses their progression‐free survival and immune response to find the OBD. The simulation study shows that the SPIRIT has desirable operating characteristics and outperforms the conventional design.     

Blinded assessment of treatment effects for survival endpoint in an ongoing trial

Many assumptions, including assumptions regarding treatment effects, are made at the design stage of a clinical trial for power and sample size calculations. It is desirable to check these assumptions during the trial by using blinded data. Methods for sample size re‐estimation based on blinded data analyses have been proposed for normal and binary endpoints. However, there is a debate that no reliable estimate of the treatment effect can be obtained in a typical clinical trial situation. In this paper, we consider the case of a survival endpoint and investigate the feasibility of estimating the treatment effect in an ongoing trial without unblinding. We incorporate information of a surrogate endpoint and investigate three estimation procedures, including a classification method and two expectation–maximization (EM) algorithms. Simulations and a clinical trial example are used to assess the performance of the procedures. Our studies show that the expectation–maximization algorithms highly depend on the initial estimates of the model parameters. Despite utilization of a surrogate endpoint, all three methods have large variations in the treatment effect estimates and hence fail to provide a precise conclusion about the treatment effect. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluating dynamic treatment strategies: does it have to be more costly?

Dynamic treatment strategies are designed to change treatments over time in response to intermediate outcomes. They can be deployed for primary treatment as well as for the introduction of adjuvant treatment or other treatment‐enhancing interventions. When treatment interventions are delayed until needed, more cost‐efficient strategies will result. Sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR) trials allow for unbiased estimation of the marginal effects of different sequences of history‐dependent treatment decisions. Because a single SMAR trial enables evaluation of many different dynamic regimes at once, it is naturally thought to require larger sample sizes than the parallel randomized trial. In this paper, we compare power between SMAR trials studying a regime, where treatment boosting enters when triggered by an observed event, versus the parallel design, where a treatment boost is consistently prescribed over the entire study period. In some settings, we found that the dynamic design yields the more efficient trial for the detection of treatment activity. We develop one particular trial to compare a dynamic nursing intervention with telemonitoring for the enhancement of medication adherence in epilepsy patients. To this end, we derive from the SMAR trial data either an average of conditional treatment effects (‘conditional estimator’) or the population‐averaged (‘marginal’) estimator of the dynamic regimes. Analytical sample size calculations for the parallel design and the conditional estimator are compared with simulated results for the population‐averaged estimator. We conclude that in specific settings, well‐chosen SMAR designs may require fewer data for the development of more cost‐efficient treatment strategies than parallel designs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.