Methods for proper handling of overrunning and underrunning in phase II designs for oncology trials

Phase II studies in oncology are frequently conducted as two-stage single-arm trials with a binary endpoint indicating tumor response. As a common feature of these designs, the sample sizes of the two stages and the decision rules for the interim and the final analysis have to be pre-specified and adhered to strictly during the course of the trial in order to assure control of the type I error rate. In practice, however, the attained sample sizes often deviate from the planned ones leading to the situation of overrunning or underrunning. The currently available approaches to deal with this problem are either based on assumptions that are rarely met in practice or do not guarantee that the significance level is kept. However, strict control of the type I error rate plays an important role also for single-arm cancer trials, as they are frequently a fundamental part of the registration information. We propose a general methodology that allows handling both unintentional and intentional overrunning and underrunning while strictly controlling the type I error rate. Application of the proposed procedure and some of its characteristics are illustrated with a real phase II oncology trial.

[1]  Weichung J Shih,et al.  Approaches to handling data when a phase II trial deviates from the pre‐specified Simon's two‐stage design , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  H. Schäfer,et al.  Adaptive Group Sequential Designs for Clinical Trials: Combining the Advantages of Adaptive and of Classical Group Sequential Approaches , 2001, Biometrics.

[3]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. , 2014, JAMA.

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

[5]  T T Chen,et al.  Optimal flexible designs in phase II clinical trials. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  L. Tye,et al.  Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Improving the Flexibility and Efficiency of Phase II Designs for Oncology Trials , 2012, Biometrics.

[8]  S. Green,et al.  Planned versus attained design in phase II clinical trials. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

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

[10]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Adaptive designs for single‐arm phase II trials in oncology , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

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

[12]  D. Heitjan,et al.  A Bayesian approach for unplanned sample sizes in phase II cancer clinical trials , 2012, Clinical trials.

[13]  T M Therneau,et al.  Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials. , 1987, Biometrics.

[14]  D. Sargent,et al.  Randomized phase II trials: inevitable or inadvisable? , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.