Bayesian adaptive patient enrollment restriction to identify a sensitive subpopulation using a continuous biomarker in a randomized phase 2 trial

With the development of molecular targeted drugs, predictive biomarkers have played an increasingly important role in identifying patients who are likely to receive clinically meaningful benefits from experimental drugs (i.e., sensitive subpopulation) even in early clinical trials. For continuous biomarkers, such as mRNA levels, it is challenging to determine cutoff value for the sensitive subpopulation, and widely accepted study designs and statistical approaches are not currently available. In this paper, we propose the Bayesian adaptive patient enrollment restriction (BAPER) approach to identify the sensitive subpopulation while restricting enrollment of patients from the insensitive subpopulation based on the results of interim analyses, in a randomized phase 2 trial with time‐to‐endpoint outcome and a single biomarker. Applying a four‐parameter change‐point model to the relationship between the biomarker and hazard ratio, we calculate the posterior distribution of the cutoff value that exhibits the target hazard ratio and use it for the restriction of the enrollment and the identification of the sensitive subpopulation. We also consider interim monitoring rules for termination because of futility or efficacy. Extensive simulations demonstrated that our proposed approach reduced the number of enrolled patients from the insensitive subpopulation, relative to an approach with no enrollment restriction, without reducing the likelihood of a correct decision for next trial (no‐go, go with entire population, or go with sensitive subpopulation) or correct identification of the sensitive subpopulation. Additionally, the four‐parameter change‐point model had a better performance over a wide range of simulation scenarios than a commonly used dichotomization approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity

In oncology, toxicity is typically observable shortly after a chemotherapy treatment, whereas efficacy, often characterized by tumor shrinkage, is observable after a relatively long period of time. In a phase II clinical trial design, we propose a Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We model efficacy as a time-to-event endpoint and toxicity as a binary endpoint, sharing common random effects in order to induce dependence between the bivariate outcomes. More generally, we allow the randomization probability to depend on patients’ specific covariates, such as prognostic factors. Early stopping boundaries are constructed for toxicity and futility, and a superior treatment arm is recommended at the end of the trial. Following the setup of a recent renal cancer clinical trial at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we conduct extensive simulation studies under various scenarios to investigate the performance of the proposed method, and compare it with available Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures.     

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.     

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.     

Data‐driven treatment selection for seamless phase II/III trials incorporating early‐outcome data

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials are conducted in two stages with treatment selection at the first stage. In the first stage, patients are randomized to a control or one of k > 1 experimental treatments. At the end of this stage, interim data are analysed, and a decision is made concerning which experimental treatment should continue to the second stage. If the primary endpoint is observable only after some period of follow‐up, at the interim analysis data may be available on some early outcome on a larger number of patients than those for whom the primary endpoint is available. These early endpoint data can thus be used for treatment selection. For two previously proposed approaches, the power has been shown to be greater for one or other method depending on the true treatment effects and correlations. We propose a new approach that builds on the previously proposed approaches and uses data available at the interim analysis to estimate these parameters and then, on the basis of these estimates, chooses the treatment selection method with the highest probability of correctly selecting the most effective treatment. This method is shown to perform well compared with the two previously described methods for a wide range of true parameter values. In most cases, the performance of the new method is either similar to or, in some cases, better than either of the two previously proposed methods. © 2014 The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

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.     

Information fraction estimation: Strategies for a phase 3 non-inferiority maximum duration design with time to event outcome

There is considerable debate surrounding the choice of methods to estimate information fraction for futility monitoring in a randomized non-inferiority maximum duration trial. This question was motivated by a pediatric oncology study that aimed to establish non-inferiority for two primary outcomes. While non-inferiority was determined for one outcome, the futility monitoring of the other outcome failed to stop the trial early, despite accumulating evidence of inferiority. For a one-sided trial design for which the intervention is inferior to the standard therapy, futility monitoring should provide the opportunity to terminate the trial early. Our research focuses on the Total Control Only (TCO) method, which is defined as a ratio of observed events to total events exclusively within the standard treatment regimen. We investigate its properties in stopping a trial early in favor of inferiority. Simulation results comparing the TCO method with alternative methods, one based on the assumption of an inferior treatment effect (TH0), and the other based on a specified hypothesis of a non-inferior treatment effect (THA), were provided under various pediatric oncology trial design settings. The TCO method is the only method that provides unbiased information fraction estimates regardless of the hypothesis assumptions and exhibits a good power and a comparable type I error rate at each interim analysis compared to other methods. Although none of the methods is uniformly superior on all criteria, the TCO method possesses favorable characteristics, making it a compelling choice for estimating the information fraction when the aim is to reduce cancer treatment-related adverse outcomes.     

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.     

Conditional estimation using prior information in 2‐stage group sequential designs assuming asymptotic normality when the trial terminated early

Two‐stage designs are widely used to determine whether a clinical trial should be terminated early. In such trials, a maximum likelihood estimate is often adopted to describe the difference in efficacy between the experimental and reference treatments; however, this method is known to display conditional bias. To reduce such bias, a conditional mean‐adjusted estimator (CMAE) has been proposed, although the remaining bias may be nonnegligible when a trial is stopped for efficacy at the interim analysis. We propose a new estimator for adjusting the conditional bias of the treatment effect by extending the idea of the CMAE. This estimator is calculated by weighting the maximum likelihood estimate obtained at the interim analysis and the effect size prespecified when calculating the sample size. We evaluate the performance of the proposed estimator through analytical and simulation studies in various settings in which a trial is stopped for efficacy or futility at the interim analysis. We find that the conditional bias of the proposed estimator is smaller than that of the CMAE when the information time at the interim analysis is small. In addition, the mean‐squared error of the proposed estimator is also smaller than that of the CMAE. In conclusion, we recommend the use of the proposed estimator for trials that are terminated early for efficacy or futility.     

A simple two-stage design for quantitative responses with application to a study in diabetic neuropathic pain

Two-stage designs offer substantial advantages for early phase II studies. The interim analysis following the first stage allows the study to be stopped for futility, or more positively, it might lead to early progression to the trials needed for late phase II and phase III. If the study is to continue to its second stage, then there is an opportunity for a revision of the total sample size. Two-stage designs have been implemented widely in oncology studies in which there is a single treatment arm and patient responses are binary. In this paper the case of two-arm comparative studies in which responses are quantitative is considered. This setting is common in therapeutic areas other than oncology. It will be assumed that observations are normally distributed, but that there is some doubt concerning their standard deviation, motivating the need for sample size review. The work reported has been motivated by a study in diabetic neuropathic pain, and the development of the design for that trial is described in detail.     

Planning for an adaptive design: a case study in COPD

We discuss the practical and clinical considerations encountered when planning a Phase IIa trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Various adaptive strategies for reducing the cost of the trial and the statistical implications of these are explored. Use of the EAST software to evaluate the properties of the study designs with one or more interim analyses for futility, efficacy or either is described. We emphasize the rationale for choosing between alternative designs and the relationship between the clinical and statistical considerations.     

Informing the selection of futility stopping thresholds: case study from a late-phase clinical trial

In an environment where (i) potential risks to subjects participating in clinical studies need to be managed carefully, (ii) trial costs are increasing, and (iii) there are limited research resources available, it is necessary to prioritize research projects and sometimes re-prioritize if early indications suggest that a trial has low probability of success. Futility designs allow this re-prioritization to take place. This paper reviews a number of possible futility methods available and presents a case study from a late-phase study of an HIV therapeutic, which utilized conditional power-based stopping thresholds. The two most challenging aspects of incorporating a futility interim analysis into a trial design are the selection of optimal stopping thresholds and the timing of the analysis, both of which require the balancing of various risks. The paper outlines a number of graphical aids that proved useful in explaining the statistical risks involved to the study team. Further, the paper outlines a decision analysis undertaken which combined expectations of drug performance with conditional power calculations in order to produce probabilities of different interim and final outcomes, and which ultimately led to the selection of the final stopping thresholds.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

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.     

Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design

In clinical trials with survival data, investigators may wish to re-estimate the sample size based on the observed effect size while the trial is ongoing. Besides the inflation of the type-I error rate due to sample size re-estimation, the method for calculating the sample size in an interim analysis should be carefully considered because the data in each stage are mutually dependent in trials with survival data. Although the interim hazard estimate is commonly used to re-estimate the sample size, the estimate can sometimes be considerably higher or lower than the hypothesized hazard by chance. We propose an interim hazard ratio estimate that can be used to re-estimate the sample size under those circumstances. The proposed method was demonstrated through a simulation study and an actual clinical trial as an example. The effect of the shape parameter for the Weibull survival distribution on the sample size re-estimation is presented.     

Applications of Bayesian statistical methodology to clinical trial design: A case study of a phase 2 trial with an interim futility assessment in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Development of new pharmacological treatments for osteoarthritis that address unmet medical needs in a competitive market place is challenging. Bayesian approaches to trial design offer advantages in defining treatment benefits by addressing clinically relevant magnitude of effects relative to comparators and in optimizing efficiency in analysis. Such advantages are illustrated by a motivating case study, a proof of concept, and dose finding study in patients with osteoarthritis. Patients with osteoarthritis were randomized to receive placebo, celecoxib, or 1 of 4 doses of galcanezumab. Primary outcome measure was change from baseline WOMAC pain after 8 weeks of treatment. Literature review of clinical trials with targeted comparator therapies quantified treatment effects versus placebo. Two success criteria were defined: one to address superiority to placebo with adequate precision and another to ensure a clinically relevant treatment effect. Trial simulations used a Bayesian dose response and longitudinal model. An interim analysis for futility was incorporated. Simulations indicated the study had ≥85% power to detect a 14‐mm improvement and ≤1% risk for a placebo‐like drug to pass. The addition of the second success criterion substantially reduced the risk of an inadequate, weakly efficacious drug proceeding to future development. The study was terminated at the interim analysis due to inadequate analgesic efficacy. A Bayesian approach using probabilistic statements enables clear understanding of success criteria, leading to informed decisions for study conduct. Incorporating an interim analysis can effectively reduce sample size, save resources, and minimize exposure of patients to an inadequate treatment.     

Oncology phase II proof‐of‐concept studies with multiple targets: Randomized controlled trial or single arm?

For oncology drug development, phase II proof‐of‐concept studies have played a key role in determining whether or not to advance to a confirmatory phase III trial. With the increasing number of immunotherapies, efficient design strategies are crucial in moving successful drugs quickly to market. Our research examines drug development decision making under the framework of maximizing resource investment, characterized by benefit cost ratios (BCRs). In general, benefit represents the likelihood that a drug is successful, and cost is characterized by the risk adjusted total sample size of the phases II and III studies. Phase III studies often include a futility interim analysis; this sequential component can also be incorporated into BCRs. Under this framework, multiple scenarios can be considered. For example, for a given drug and cancer indication, BCRs can yield insights into whether to use a randomized control trial or a single‐arm study. Importantly, any uncertainty in historical control estimates that are used to benchmark single‐arm studies can be explicitly incorporated into BCRs. More complex scenarios, such as restricted resources or multiple potential cancer indications, can also be examined. Overall, BCR analyses indicate that single‐arm trials are favored for proof‐of‐concept trials when there is low uncertainty in historical control data and smaller phase III sample sizes. Otherwise, especially if the most likely to succeed tumor indication can be identified, randomized controlled trials may be a better option. While the findings are consistent with intuition, we provide a more objective approach.     

Quantification of follow-up time in oncology clinical trials with a time-to-event endpoint: Asking the right questions

For the analysis of a time-to-event endpoint in a single-arm or randomized clinical trial it is generally perceived that interpretation of a given estimate of the survival function, or the comparison between two groups, hinges on some quantification of the amount of follow-up. Typically, a median of some loosely defined quantity is reported. However, whatever median is reported, is typically not answering the question(s) trialists actually have in terms of follow-up quantification. In this paper, inspired by the estimand framework, we formulate a comprehensive list of relevant scientific questions that trialists have when reporting time-to-event data. We illustrate how these questions should be answered, and that reference to an unclearly defined follow-up quantity is not needed at all. In drug development, key decisions are made based on randomized controlled trials, and we therefore also discuss relevant scientific questions not only when looking at a time-to-event endpoint in one group, but also for comparisons. We find that different thinking about some of the relevant scientific questions around follow-up is required depending on whether a proportional hazards assumption can be made or other patterns of survival functions are anticipated, for example, delayed separation, crossing survival functions, or the potential for cure. We conclude the paper with practical recommendations.     

A flexible multi-stage design for phase II oncology trials

Phase II trials evaluate whether a new drug or a new therapy is worth further pursuing or certain treatments are feasible or not. A typical phase II is a single arm (open label) trial with a binary clinical endpoint (response to therapy). Although many oncology Phase II clinical trials are designed with a two-stage procedure, multi-stage design for phase II cancer clinical trials are now feasible due to increased capability of data capture. Such design adjusts for multiple analyses and variations in analysis time, and provides greater flexibility such as minimizing the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy and identifying the minimum number of patients needed to evaluate whether the trial would warrant further development. In most of the NIH sponsored studies, the early stopping rule is determined so that the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy is minimized. In pharmaceutical trials, it is also of importance to know as early as possible if the trial is highly promising and what is the likelihood the early conclusion can sustain. Although various methods are available to address these issues, practitioners often use disparate methods for addressing different issues and do not realize a single unified method exists. This article shows how to utilize a unified approach via a fully sequential procedure, the sequential conditional probability ratio test, to address the multiple needs of a phase II trial. We show the fully sequential program can be used to derive an optimized efficient multi-stage design for either a low activity or a high activity, to identify the minimum number of patients required to assess whether a new drug warrants further study and to adjust for unplanned interim analyses. In addition, we calculate a probability of discordance that the statistical test will conclude otherwise should the trial continue to the planned end that is usually at the sample size of a fixed sample design. This probability can be used to aid in decision making in a drug development program. All computations are based on exact binomial distribution.     

Assessment of futility in clinical trials

The term 'futility' is used to refer to the inability of a clinical trial to achieve its objectives. In particular, stopping a clinical trial when the interim results suggest that it is unlikely to achieve statistical significance can save resources that could be used on more promising research. There are various approaches that have been proposed to assess futility, including stochastic curtailment, predictive power, predictive probability, and group sequential methods. In this paper, we describe and contrast these approaches, and discuss several issues associated with futility analyses, such as ethical considerations, whether or not type I error can or should be reclaimed, one-sided vs two-sided futility rules, and the impact of futility analyses on power.