Stopping for efficacy in single-arm phase II clinical trials

Phase II clinical trials investigate whether a new drug or treatment has sufficient evidence of effectiveness against the disease under study. Two-stage designs are popular for phase II since they can stop in the first stage if the drug is ineffective. Investigators often face difficulties in determining the target response rates, and adaptive designs can help to set the target response rate tested in the second stage based on the number of responses observed in the first stage. Popular adaptive designs consider two alternate response rates, and they generally minimise the expected sample size at the maximum uninterested response rate. Moreover, these designs consider only futility as the reason for early stopping and have high expected sample sizes if the provided drug is effective. Motivated by this problem, we propose an adaptive design that enables us to terminate the single-arm trial at the first stage for efficacy and conclude which alternate response rate to choose. Comparing the proposed design with a popular adaptive design from literature reveals that the expected sample size decreases notably if any of the two target response rates are correct. In contrast, the expected sample size remains almost the same under the null hypothesis.     

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.     

Planning a Bayesian early-phase phase I/II study for human vaccines in HER2 carcinomas

Recent innovative statistical approaches for phase I/II clinical trials allow one to jointly model the toxicity and efficacy of a new treatment, taking into account the information gathered during the trial. Prior probabilities are then updated with interim data and thus predictive probabilities become more accurate as the trial progresses. In this study, prior distribution elicited from a physician's opinion on the available dose levels planned for a vaccination dose-finding trial, with human DNA in patients with HER2-positive tumours in terms of toxicity and therapeutic response is presented and discussed. A simulation study was conducted in order to quantify the impact of the choice of prior on study results, i.e. the recommended dose level at the end of the trial.     

Bayesian adaptive two-stage design for determining person-time in Phase II clinical trials with Poisson data

Adaptive clinical trial designs can often improve drug-study efficiency by utilizing data obtained during the course of the trial. We present a novel Bayesian two-stage adaptive design for Phase II clinical trials with Poisson-distributed outcomes that allows for person-observation-time adjustments for early termination due to either futility or efficacy. Our design is motivated by the adaptive trial from [9 V. Sambucini, A Bayesian predictive two-stage design for Phase II clinical trials, Stat. Med. 27 (2008), pp. 1199–1224. doi: 10.1002/sim.3021[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]], which uses binomial data. Although many frequentist and Bayesian two-stage adaptive designs for count data have been proposed in the literature, many designs do not allow for person-time adjustments after the first stage. This restriction limits flexibility in the study design. However, our proposed design allows for such flexibility by basing the second-stage person-time on the first-stage observed-count data. We demonstrate the implementation of our Bayesian predictive adaptive two-stage design using a hypothetical Phase II trial of Immune Globulin (Intravenous).     

Efficacy and toxicity monitoring via Bayesian predictive probabilities in phase II clinical trials

Bayesian monitoring strategies based on predictive probabilities are widely used in phase II clinical trials that involve a single efficacy binary variable. The essential idea is to control the predictive probability that the trial will show a conclusive result at the scheduled end of the study, given the information at the interim stage and the prior beliefs. In this paper, we present an extension of this approach to incorporate toxicity considerations in single-arm phase II trials. We consider two binary endpoints representing response and toxicity of the experimental treatment and define the result as successful at the conclusion of the study if the posterior probability of an high efficacy and that of a small toxicity are both sufficiently large. At any interim look, the Multinomial-Dirichlet distribution provides the predictive probability of each possible combination of future efficacy and toxicity outcomes. It is exploited to obtain the predictive probability that the trial will yield a positive outcome, if it continues to the planned end. Different possible interim situations are considered to investigate the behaviour of the proposed predictive rules and the differences with the monitoring strategies based on posterior probabilities are highlighted. Simulation studies are also performed to evaluate the frequentist operating characteristics of the proposed design and to calibrate the design parameters.

     

Early stopping in seamless phase I/II clinical trials

In recent years, seamless phase I/II clinical trials have drawn much attention, as they consider both toxicity and efficacy endpoints in finding an optimal dose (OD). Engaging an appropriate number of patients in a trial is a challenging task. This paper attempts a dynamic stopping rule to save resources in phase I/II trials. That is, the stopping rule aims to save patients from unnecessary toxic or subtherapeutic doses. We allow a trial to stop early when widths of the confidence intervals for the dose-response parameters become narrower or when the sample size is equal to a predefined size, whichever comes first. The simulation study of dose-response scenarios in various settings demonstrates that the proposed stopping rule can engage an appropriate number of patients. Therefore, we suggest its use in clinical trials.     

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.     

Bayesian sample size determination for phase IIA clinical trials using historical data and semi‐parametric prior's elicitation

The Simon's two‐stage design is the most commonly applied among multi‐stage designs in phase IIA clinical trials. It combines the sample sizes at the two stages in order to minimize either the expected or the maximum sample size. When the uncertainty about pre‐trial beliefs on the expected or desired response rate is high, a Bayesian alternative should be considered since it allows to deal with the entire distribution of the parameter of interest in a more natural way. In this setting, a crucial issue is how to construct a distribution from the available summaries to use as a clinical prior in a Bayesian design. In this work, we explore the Bayesian counterparts of the Simon's two‐stage design based on the predictive version of the single threshold design. This design requires specifying two prior distributions: the analysis prior, which is used to compute the posterior probabilities, and the design prior, which is employed to obtain the prior predictive distribution. While the usual approach is to build beta priors for carrying out a conjugate analysis, we derived both the analysis and the design distributions through linear combinations of B‐splines. The motivating example is the planning of the phase IIA two‐stage trial on anti‐HER2 DNA vaccine in breast cancer, where initial beliefs formed from elicited experts' opinions and historical data showed a high level of uncertainty. In a sample size determination problem, the impact of different priors is evaluated.     

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.     

Stochastic approximation methods and their use in bioassay and phase i clinical trials

Stochastic approximation procedures are sequential estimation methods which provide estimates for the point at which a general regression function attains a given value. The application of such methods to the problem of estimating the median effective does in bioassay and to the problem of estimating the maximally tolerated does in phase I clinical trials is discussed. it is argued that these methods could be very useful in practice.     

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.     

Decision‐making in a phase II clinical trial: a new approach combining Bayesian and frequentist concepts

The aim of a phase II clinical trial is to decide whether or not to develop an experimental therapy further through phase III clinical evaluation. In this paper, we present a Bayesian approach to the phase II trial, although we assume that subsequent phase III clinical trials will have standard frequentist analyses. The decision whether to conduct the phase III trial is based on the posterior predictive probability of a significant result being obtained. This fusion of Bayesian and frequentist techniques accepts the current paradigm for expressing objective evidence of therapeutic value, while optimizing the form of the phase II investigation that leads to it. By using prior information, we can assess whether a phase II study is needed at all, and how much or what sort of evidence is required. The proposed approach is illustrated by the design of a phase II clinical trial of a multi‐drug resistance modulator used in combination with standard chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Bayesian analysis of the amended Davidson model for paired comparison using noninformative and informative priors

In recent years, numerous statisticians have focused their attention on the Bayesian analysis of different paired comparison models. While studying paired comparison techniques, the Davidson model is considered to be one of the famous paired comparison models in the available literature. In this article, we have introduced an amendment in the Davidson model which has been commenced to accommodate the option of not distinguishing the effects of two treatments when they are compared pairwise. Having made this amendment, the Bayesian analysis of the Amended Davidson model is performed using the noninformative (uniform and Jeffreys’) and informative (Dirichlet–gamma–gamma) priors. To study the model and to perform the Bayesian analysis with the help of an example, we have obtained the joint and marginal posterior distributions of the parameters, their posterior estimates, graphical presentations of the marginal densities, preference and predictive probabilities and the posterior probabilities to compare the treatment parameters.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of safety monitoring on error probabilities of binary efficacy outcome analyses in large phase III group sequential trials

In phase III clinical trials, some adverse events may not be rare or unexpected and can be considered as a primary measure for safety, particularly in trials of life-threatening conditions, such as stroke or traumatic brain injury. In some clinical areas, efficacy endpoints may be highly correlated with safety endpoints, yet the interim efficacy analyses under group sequential designs usually do not consider safety measures formally in the analyses. Furthermore, safety is often statistically monitored more frequently than efficacy measures. Because early termination of a trial in this situation can be triggered by either efficacy or safety, the impact of safety monitoring on the error probabilities of efficacy analyses may be nontrivial if the original design does not take the multiplicity effect into account. We estimate the actual error probabilities for a bivariate binary efficacy-safety response in large confirmatory group sequential trials. The estimated probabilities are verified by Monte Carlo simulation. Our findings suggest that type I error for efficacy analyses decreases as efficacy-safety correlation or between-group difference in the safety event rate increases. In addition, although power for efficacy is robust to misspecification of the efficacy-safety correlation, it decreases dramatically as between-group difference in the safety event rate increases.     

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.     

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.     

Addressing the effect of parameter estimation on phase II monitoring of multivariate multiple linear profiles via a new cluster-based approach

Abstract

Profile monitoring is applied when the quality of a product or a process can be determined by the relationship between a response variable and one or more independent variables. In most Phase II monitoring approaches, it is assumed that the process parameters are known. However, it is obvious that this assumption is not valid in many real-world applications. In fact, the process parameters should be estimated based on the in-control Phase I samples. In this study, the effect of parameter estimation on the performance of four Phase II control charts for monitoring multivariate multiple linear profiles is evaluated. In addition, since the accuracy of the parameter estimation has a significant impact on the performance of Phase II control charts, a new cluster-based approach is developed to address this effect. Moreover, we evaluate and compare the performance of the proposed approach with a previous approach in terms of two metrics, average of average run length and its standard deviation, which are used for considering practitioner-to-practitioner variability. In this approach, it is not necessary to know the distribution of the chart statistic. Therefore, in addition to ease of use, the proposed approach can be applied to other type of profiles. The superior performance of the proposed method compared to the competing one is shown in terms of all metrics. Based on the results obtained, our method yields less bias with small-variance Phase I estimates compared to the competing approach.