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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A two‐stage phase II clinical trial design with nested criteria for early stopping and efficacy

We propose a two‐stage design for a single arm clinical trial with an early stopping rule for futility. This design employs different endpoints to assess early stopping and efficacy. The early stopping rule is based on a criteria determined more quickly than that for efficacy. These separate criteria are also nested in the sense that efficacy is a special case of, but usually not identical to, the early stopping endpoint. The design readily allows for planning in terms of statistical significance, power, expected sample size, and expected duration. This method is illustrated with a phase II design comparing rates of disease progression in elderly patients treated for lung cancer to rates found using a historical control. In this example, the early stopping rule is based on the number of patients who exhibit progression‐free survival (PFS) at 2 months post treatment follow‐up. Efficacy is judged by the number of patients who have PFS at 6 months. We demonstrate our design has expected sample size and power comparable with the Simon two‐stage design but exhibits shorter expected duration under a range of useful parameter values.     

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.     

Generalized optimal design for two‐arm,randomized phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential dispersion family

For two‐arm randomized phase II clinical trials, previous literature proposed an optimal design that minimizes the total sample sizes subject to multiple constraints on the standard errors of the estimated event rates and their difference. The original design is limited to trials with dichotomous endpoints. This paper extends the original approach to be applicable to phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential dispersion family distributions. The proposed optimal design minimizes the total sample sizes needed to provide estimates of population means of both arms and their difference with pre‐specified precision. Its applications on data from specific distribution families are discussed under multiple design considerations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Incorporating historical two‐arm data in clinical trials with binary outcome: A practical approach

The feasibility of a new clinical trial may be increased by incorporating historical data of previous trials. In the particular case where only data from a single historical trial are available, there exists no clear recommendation in the literature regarding the most favorable approach. A main problem of the incorporation of historical data is the possible inflation of the type I error rate. A way to control this type of error is the so‐called power prior approach. This Bayesian method does not “borrow” the full historical information but uses a parameter 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 to determine the amount of borrowed data. Based on the methodology of the power prior, we propose a frequentist framework that allows incorporation of historical data from both arms of two‐armed trials with binary outcome, while simultaneously controlling the type I error rate. It is shown that for any specific trial scenario a value δ > 0 can be determined such that the type I error rate falls below the prespecified significance level. The magnitude of this value of δ depends on the characteristics of the data observed in the historical trial. Conditionally on these characteristics, an increase in power as compared to a trial without borrowing may result. Similarly, we propose methods how the required sample size can be reduced. The results are discussed and compared to those obtained in a Bayesian framework. Application is illustrated by a clinical trial example.     

TITE‐BOIN‐ET: Time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose‐finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de‐escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late‐onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named “TITE‐BOIN‐ET” design, is nonparametric and a model‐assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose‐finding trials compared with the model‐based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design has advantages compared with the model‐based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose‐finding trials.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints

The success rate of drug development has been declined dramatically in recent years and the current paradigm of drug development is no longer functioning. It requires a major undertaking on breakthrough strategies and methodology for designs to minimize sample sizes and to shorten duration of the development. We propose an alternative phase II/III design based on continuous efficacy endpoints, which consists of two stages: a selection stage and a confirmation stage. For the selection stage, a randomized parallel design with several doses with a placebo group is employed for selection of doses. After the best dose is chosen, the patients of the selected dose group and placebo group continue to enter the confirmation stage. New patients will also be recruited and randomized to receive the selected dose or placebo group. The final analysis is performed with the cumulative data of patients from both stages. With the pre‐specified probabilities of rejecting the drug at each stage, sample sizes and critical values for both stages can be determined. As it is a single trial with controlling overall type I and II error rates, the proposed phase II/III adaptive design may not only reduce the sample size but also improve the success rate. An example illustrates the applications of the proposed phase II/III adaptive design. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Blinded sample size re‐estimation in superiority and noninferiority trials: bias versus variance in variance estimation

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures based on the one‐sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re‐estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re‐estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one‐sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re‐estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one‐sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.