Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase II cancer clinical trials

The Simon two-stage optimal design is often used for phase II cancer clinical trials. A study proceeds to the second stage unless the null hypothesis, that the true tumour response rate is below some specified value, is already accepted at the end of stage one. The conventional optimal design, for given type 1 and type 2 error rates, is the one which minimises the expected sample size under the null hypothesis. However, at least some new agents are active, and designs that explicitly address this possibility should be considered. We therefore investigate novel designs which are optimal under the alternative hypothesis, that the tumour response rate is higher than the null hypothesis value, and also designs which allow early stopping for efficacy. We make available, software for identifying the corresponding optimal and minimax designs. Considerable savings in expected sample sizes can be achieved if the alternative hypothesis is in fact true, without sample sizes suffering too much if the null hypothesis is true. We present an example discussing the merits of different designs in a practical context. We conclude that it is relevant to consider optimal designs under a range of hypotheses about the true response rate, and that allowing early stopping for efficacy is always advantageous in terms of expected sample size.

[1]  L. Stewart,et al.  Clinical Trials in Cancer: Principles and Practice , 2003 .

[2]  E. Gehan,et al.  A modification of Simon's optimal design for phase II trials when the criterion is median sample size. , 1999, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  Tatsuki Koyama,et al.  Proper inference from Simon's two‐stage designs , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  T. Chen,et al.  Optimal three-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Jonathan Shuster,et al.  Optimal two-stage designs for single arm Phase II cancer trials , 2002, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  Yunchan Chi,et al.  Curtailed two-stage designs in Phase II clinical trials. , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  M. Shan,et al.  Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials. , 2008, Contemporary clinical trials.

[8]  Mark J Ratain,et al.  Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Y. Shyr,et al.  Balanced two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials , 2007, Clinical trials.

[10]  R. Simon,et al.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[12]  Patrick Schöffski,et al.  Pazopanib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study from the European organisation for research and treatment of cancer-soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (EORTC study 62043). , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  J Jack Lee,et al.  Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Weichung J Shih,et al.  Adaptive Two‐Stage Designs for Single‐Arm Phase IIA Cancer Clinical Trials , 2004, Biometrics.

[15]  R. Simon,et al.  How large should a phase II trial of a new drug be? , 1987, Cancer treatment reports.

[16]  Sin-Ho Jung,et al.  Admissible two‐stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  J Jack Lee,et al.  A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials , 2008, Clinical trials.

[18]  T R Fleming,et al.  One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. , 1982, Biometrics.