Application of Bayesian hierarchical models for phase I/II clinical trials in oncology

Treatment during cancer clinical trials sometimes involves the combination of multiple drugs. In addition, in recent years there has been a trend toward phase I/II trials in which a phase I and a phase II trial are combined into a single trial to accelerate drug development. Methods for the seamless combination of phases I and II parts are currently under investigation. In the phase II part, adaptive randomization on the basis of patient efficacy outcomes allocates more patients to the dose combinations considered to have higher efficacy. Patient toxicity outcomes are used for determining admissibility to each dose combination and are not used for selection of the dose combination itself. In cases where the objective is not to find the optimum dose combination solely for efficacy but regarding both toxicity and efficacy, the need exists to allocate patients to dose combinations with consideration of the balance of existing trade‐offs between toxicity and efficacy. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model and an adaptive randomization with consideration for the relationship with toxicity and efficacy. Using the toxicity and efficacy outcomes of patients, the Bayesian hierarchical model is used to estimate the toxicity probability and efficacy probability in each of the dose combinations. Here, we use Bayesian moving‐reference adaptive randomization on the basis of desirability computed from the obtained estimator. Computer simulations suggest that the proposed method will likely recommend a higher percentage of target dose combinations than a previously proposed method.     

A confidence function-based posterior probability design for phase II cancer trials

Single-arm one- or multi-stage study designs are commonly used in phase II oncology development when the primary outcome of interest is tumor response, a binary variable. Both two- and three-outcome designs are available. Simon two-stage design is a well-known example of two-outcome designs. The objective of a two-outcome trial is to reject either the null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is less than or equal to a pre-specified low uninteresting rate or to reject the alternative hypothesis that the ORR is greater than or equal to some target rate. Three-outcome designs proposed by Sargent et al. allow a middle gray decision zone which rejects neither hypothesis in order to reduce the required study size. We propose new two- and three-outcome designs with continual monitoring based on Bayesian posterior probability that meet frequentist specifications such as type I and II error rates. Futility and/or efficacy boundaries are based on confidence functions, which can require higher levels of evidence for early versus late stopping and have clear and intuitive interpretations. We search in a class of such procedures for optimal designs that minimize a given loss function such as average sample size under the null hypothesis. We present several examples and compare our design with other procedures in the literature and show that our design has good operating characteristics.     

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.     

Sample size planning for phase II trials based on success probabilities for phase III

In recent years, high failure rates in phase III trials were observed. One of the main reasons is overoptimistic assumptions for the planning of phase III resulting from limited phase II information and/or unawareness of realistic success probabilities. We present an approach for planning a phase II trial in a time‐to‐event setting that considers the whole phase II/III clinical development programme. We derive stopping boundaries after phase II that minimise the number of events under side conditions for the conditional probabilities of correct go/no‐go decision after phase II as well as the conditional success probabilities for phase III. In addition, we give general recommendations for the choice of phase II sample size. Our simulations show that unconditional probabilities of go/no‐go decision as well as the unconditional success probabilities for phase III are influenced by the number of events observed in phase II. However, choosing more than 150 events in phase II seems not necessary as the impact on these probabilities then becomes quite small. We recommend considering aspects like the number of compounds in phase II and the resources available when determining the sample size. The lower the number of compounds and the lower the resources are for phase III, the higher the investment for phase II should be. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An adaptive biomarker basket design in phase II oncology trials

The phase II basket trial in oncology is a novel design that enables the simultaneous assessment of treatment effects of one anti-cancer targeted agent in multiple cancer types. Biomarkers could potentially associate with the clinical outcomes and re-define clinically meaningful treatment effects. It is therefore natural to develop a biomarker-based basket design to allow the prospective enrichment of the trials with the adaptive selection of the biomarker-positive (BM+) subjects who are most sensitive to the experimental treatment. We propose a two-stage phase II adaptive biomarker basket (ABB) design based on a potential predictive biomarker measured on a continuous scale. At Stage 1, the design incorporates a biomarker cutoff estimation procedure via a hierarchical Bayesian model with biomarker as a covariate (HBMbc). At Stage 2, the design enrolls only BM+ subjects, defined as those with the biomarker values exceeding the biomarker cutoff within each cancer type, and subsequently assesses the early efficacy and/or futility stopping through the pre-defined interim analyses. At the end of the trial, the response rate of all BM+ subjects for each cancer type can guide drug development, while the data from all subjects can be used to further model the relationship between the biomarker value and the clinical outcome for potential future research. The extensive simulation studies show that the ABB design could produce a good estimate of the biomarker cutoff to select BM+ subjects with high accuracy and could outperform the existing phase II basket biomarker cutoff design under various scenarios.     

START: single‐to‐double arm transition design for phase II clinical trials

Phase II clinical trials designed for evaluating a drug's treatment effect can be either single‐arm or double‐arm. A single‐arm design tests the null hypothesis that the response rate of a new drug is lower than a fixed threshold, whereas a double‐arm scheme takes a more objective comparison of the response rate between the new treatment and the standard of care through randomization. Although the randomized design is the gold standard for efficacy assessment, various situations may arise where a single‐arm pilot study prior to a randomized trial is necessary. To combine the single‐ and double‐arm phases and pool the information together for better decision making, we propose a Single‐To‐double ARm Transition design (START) with switching hypotheses tests, where the first stage compares the new drug's response rate with a minimum required level and imposes a continuation criterion, and the second stage utilizes randomization to determine the treatment's superiority. We develop a software package in R to calibrate the frequentist error rates and perform simulation studies to assess the trial characteristics. Finally, a metastatic pancreatic cancer trial is used for illustrating the decision rules under the proposed START design.     

Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials that incorporate the expected sample size under the alternative hypothesis

two‐stage studies may be chosen optimally by minimising a single characteristic like the maximum sample size. However, given that an investigator will initially select a null treatment e?ect and the clinically relevant di?erence, it is better to choose a design that also considers the expected sample size for each of these values. The maximum sample size and the two expected sample sizes are here combined to produce an expected loss function to ?nd designs that are admissible. Given the prior odds of success and the importance of the total sample size, minimising the expected loss gives the optimal design for this situation. A novel triangular graph to represent the admissible designs helps guide the decision‐making process. The H ₀‐optimal, H ₁‐optimal, H ₀‐minimax and H ₁‐minimax designs are all particular cases of admissible designs. The commonly used H ₀‐optimal design is rarely good when allowing stopping for e?cacy. Additionally, the δ‐minimax design, which minimises the maximum expected sample size, is sometimes admissible under the loss function. However, the results can be varied and each situation will require the evaluation of all the admissible designs. Software to do this is provided. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adaptive designs for single‐arm phase II trials in oncology

Clinical phase II trials in oncology are conducted to determine whether the activity of a new anticancer treatment is promising enough to merit further investigation. Two‐stage designs are commonly used for this situation to allow for early termination. Designs proposed in the literature so far have the common drawback that the sample sizes for the two stages have to be specified in the protocol and have to be adhered to strictly during the course of the trial. As a consequence, designs that allow a higher extent of flexibility are desirable. In this article, we propose a new adaptive method that allows an arbitrary modification of the sample size of the second stage using the results of the interim analysis or external information while controlling the type I error rate. If the sample size is not changed during the trial, the proposed design shows very similar characteristics to the optimal two‐stage design proposed by Chang et al. (Biometrics 1987; 43:865–874). However, the new design allows the use of mid‐course information for the planning of the second stage, thus meeting practical requirements when performing clinical phase II trials in oncology. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dose finding with continuous outcome in phase I oncology trials

The goal of a phase I clinical trial in oncology is to find a dose with acceptable dose‐limiting toxicity rate. Often, when a cytostatic drug is investigated or when the maximum tolerated dose is defined using a toxicity score, the main endpoint in a phase I trial is continuous. We propose a new method to use in a dose‐finding trial with continuous endpoints. The new method selects the right dose on par with other methods and provides more flexibility in assigning patients to doses in the course of the trial when the rate of accrual is fast relative to the follow‐up time. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints

Although the statistical methods enabling efficient adaptive seamless designs are increasingly well established, it is important to continue to use the endpoints and specifications that best suit the therapy area and stage of development concerned when conducting such a trial. Approaches exist that allow adaptive designs to continue seamlessly either in a subpopulation of patients or in the whole population on the basis of data obtained from the first stage of a phase II/III design: our proposed design adds extra flexibility by also allowing the trial to continue in all patients but with both the subgroup and the full population as co-primary populations. Further, methodology is presented which controls the Type-I error rate at less than 2.5% when the phase II and III endpoints are different but correlated time-to-event endpoints. The operating characteristics of the design are described along with a discussion of the practical aspects in an oncology setting.     

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.     

Adaptive phase I/II clinical trials for drug combination assessment in oncology using the outcomes of each cycle

Many new anticancer agents can be combined with existing drugs, as combining a number of drugs may be expected to have a better therapeutic effect than monotherapy owing to synergistic effects. Furthermore, to drive drug development and to reduce the associated cost, there has been a growing tendency to combine these as phase I/II trials. With respect to phase I/II oncology trials for the assessment of dose combinations, in the existing methodologies in which efficacy based on tumor response and safety based on toxicity are modeled as binary outcomes, it is not possible to enroll and treat the next cohort of patients unless the best overall response has been determined in the current cohort. Thus, the trial duration might be potentially extended to an unacceptable degree. In this study, we proposed a method that randomizes the next cohort of patients in the phase II part to the dose combination based on the estimated response rate using all the available observed data upon determination of the overall response in the current cohort. We compared the proposed method to the existing method using simulation studies. These demonstrated that the percentage of optimal dose combinations selected in the proposed method is not less than that in the existing method and that the trial duration in the proposed method is shortened compared to that in the existing method. The proposed method meets both ethical and financial requirements, and we believe it has the potential to contribute to expedite drug development.     

Two-stage phase II trials with early stopping for effectiveness and safety as well as ineffectiveness or harm

This article proposes new optimal and minimax designs, which allow early stopping not only for ineffectiveness or toxicity but also for sufficient effectiveness and safety. These designs may facilitate effective drug development by detecting sufficient effectiveness and safety at an early stage or by detecting ineffectiveness or excessive toxicity at an early stage. The proposed design has advantage over other designs in the sense that it can control the type I error rate and is robust against the real association parameter. Comparing to Jin's design, it is always advantageous in terms of expected sample size.     

Accounting for uncertainty in the historical response rate of the standard treatment in single‐arm two‐stage designs based on Bayesian power functions

In phase II single‐arm studies, the response rate of the experimental treatment is typically compared with a fixed target value that should ideally represent the true response rate for the standard of care therapy. Generally, this target value is estimated through previous data, but the inherent variability in the historical response rate is not taken into account. In this paper, we present a Bayesian procedure to construct single‐arm two‐stage designs that allows to incorporate uncertainty in the response rate of the standard treatment. In both stages, the sample size determination criterion is based on the concepts of conditional and predictive Bayesian power functions. Different kinds of prior distributions, which play different roles in the designs, are introduced, and some guidelines for their elicitation are described. Finally, some numerical results about the performance of the designs are provided and a real data example is illustrated. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Optimal two-stage designs for phase ii clinical trials with differentiation of complete and partial responses

In the usual design and analysis of a phase II trial, there is no differentiation between complete response and partial response. Since complete response is considered more desirable this paper proposes a weighted score method which extends Simon's (1989) two-stage design to the situation where the complete and partial responses are differentiated. The weight assigned to the complete response is suggested by examining the likelihood ratio (LR) statistic for testing a simple hypothesis of a trinomial distribution. Both optimal and minimax designs are tabulated for a wide range of design parameters. The weighted score approach is shown to give more efficient designs, especially when the response probability is moderate to large.     

Optimal planning of phase II/III programs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints

Owing to increased costs and competition pressure, drug development becomes more and more challenging. Therefore, there is a strong need for improving efficiency of clinical research by developing and applying methods for quantitative decision making. In this context, the integrated planning for phase II/III programs plays an important role as numerous quantities can be varied that are crucial for cost, benefit, and program success. Recently, a utility‐based framework has been proposed for an optimal planning of phase II/III programs that puts the choice of decision boundaries and phase II sample sizes on a quantitative basis. However, this method is restricted to studies with a single time‐to‐event endpoint. We generalize this procedure to the setting of clinical trials with multiple endpoints and (asymptotically) normally distributed test statistics. Optimal phase II sample sizes and go/no‐go decision rules are provided for both the “all‐or‐none” and “at‐least‐one” win criteria. Application of the proposed method is illustrated by drug development programs in the fields of Alzheimer disease and oncology.     

Joint probability of statistical success of multiple phase III trials

In drug development, after completion of phase II proof‐of‐concept trials, the sponsor needs to make a go/no‐go decision to start expensive phase III trials. The probability of statistical success (PoSS) of the phase III trials based on data from earlier studies is an important factor in that decision‐making process. Instead of statistical power, the predictive power of a phase III trial, which takes into account the uncertainty in the estimation of treatment effect from earlier studies, has been proposed to evaluate the PoSS of a single trial. However, regulatory authorities generally require statistical significance in two (or more) trials for marketing licensure. We show that the predictive statistics of two future trials are statistically correlated through use of the common observed data from earlier studies. Thus, the joint predictive power should not be evaluated as a simplistic product of the predictive powers of the individual trials. We develop the relevant formulae for the appropriate evaluation of the joint predictive power and provide numerical examples. Our methodology is further extended to the more complex phase III development scenario comprising more than two (K > 2) trials, that is, the evaluation of the PoSS of at least k₀ () trials from a program of K total trials. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Empowering phase II clinical trials to reduce phase III failures

The large number of failures in phase III clinical trials, which occur at a rate of approximately 45%, is studied herein relative to possible countermeasures. First, the phenomenon of failures is numerically described. Second, the main reasons for failures are reported, together with some generic improvements suggested in the related literature. This study shows how statistics explain, but do not justify, the high failure rate observed. The rate of failures due to a lack of efficacy that are not expected, is considered to be at least 10%. Expanding phase II is the simplest and most intuitive way to reduce phase III failures since it can reduce phase III false negative findings and launches of phase III trials when the treatment is positive but suboptimal. Moreover, phase II enlargement is discussed using an economic profile. As resources for research are often limited, enlarging phase II should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Alternative strategies, such as biomarker‐based enrichments and adaptive designs, may aid in reducing failures. However, these strategies also have very low application rates with little likelihood of rapid growth.     

TSNP: A two-stage nonparametric phase I/II clinical trial design for immunotherapy

We develop a transparent and efficient two-stage nonparametric (TSNP) phase I/II clinical trial design to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) of immunotherapy. We propose a nonparametric approach to derive the closed-form estimates of the joint toxicity–efficacy response probabilities under the monotonic increasing constraint for the toxicity outcomes. These estimates are then used to measure the immunotherapy's toxicity–efficacy profiles at each dose and guide the dose finding. The first stage of the design aims to explore the toxicity profile. The second stage aims to find the OBD, which can achieve the optimal therapeutic effect by considering both the toxicity and efficacy outcomes through a utility function. The closed-form estimates and concise dose-finding algorithm make the TSNP design appealing in practice. The simulation results show that the TSNP design yields superior operating characteristics than the existing Bayesian parametric designs. User-friendly computational software is freely available to facilitate the application of the proposed design to real trials. We provide comprehensive illustrations and examples about implementing the proposed design with associated software.     

Three-stage designs for monitoring clinical trials

Optimal three-stage designs with equal sample sizes at each stage are presented and compared to fixed sample designs, fully sequential designs, designs restricted to use the fixed sample critical value at the final stage, and to modifications of other group sequential designs previously proposed in the literature. Typically, the greatest savings realized with interim analyses are obtained by the first interim look. More than 50% of the savings possible with a fully sequential design can be realized with a simple two-stage design. Three-stage designs can realize as much as 75% of the possible savings. Without much loss in efficiency, the designs can be modified so that the critical value at the final stage equals the usual fixed sample value while maintaining the overall level of significance, alleviating some potential confusion should a final stage be necessary. Some common group sequential designs, modified to allow early acceptance of the null hypothesis, are shown to be nearly optimal in some settings while performing poorly in others. An example is given to illustrate the use of several three-stage plans in the design of clinical trials.