Biomarker driven population enrichment for adaptive oncology trials with time to event endpoints

The development of molecularly targeted therapies for certain types of cancers has led to the consideration of population enrichment designs that explicitly factor in the possibility that the experimental compound might differentially benefit different biomarker subgroups. In such designs, enrollment would initially be open to a broad patient population with the option to restrict future enrollment, following an interim analysis, to only those biomarker subgroups that appeared to be benefiting from the experimental therapy. While this strategy could greatly improve the chances of success for the trial, it poses several statistical and logistical design challenges. Because late-stage oncology trials are typically event driven, one faces a complex trade-off between power, sample size, number of events, and study duration. This trade-off is further compounded by the importance of maintaining statistical independence of the data before and after the interim analysis and of optimizing the timing of the interim analysis. This paper presents statistical methodology that ensures strong control of type 1 error for such population enrichment designs, based on generalizations of the conditional error rate approach. The special difficulties encountered with time-to-event endpoints are addressed by our methods. The crucial role of simulation for guiding the choice of design parameters is emphasized. Although motivated by oncology, the methods are applicable as well to population enrichment designs in other therapeutic areas.

[1]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  C. Jennison,et al.  An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints † , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[3]  P. Bauer,et al.  Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. , 1994, Biometrics.

[4]  J. Coon,et al.  Selecting Patients for Treatment with Epidermal Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  P. Bauer,et al.  Modification of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections by H. Schäfer and H.‐H. Müller, Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20: 3741–3751 , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Helmut Schäfer,et al.  Interim Design Modifications in Time-to-Event Studies , 2012 .

[7]  T. Friede,et al.  A conditional error function approach for subgroup selection in adaptive clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Hoang Q. Nguyen,et al.  A Hybrid Geometric Phase II/III Clinical Trial Design based on Treatment Failure Time and Toxicity. , 2012, Journal of statistical planning and inference.

[9]  L Di Scala,et al.  Time‐to‐event analysis with treatment arm selection at interim , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  M. Posch,et al.  Adaptive Survival Trials , 2014, 1405.1569.

[11]  Bart Spiessens,et al.  Adjusted significance levels for subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[12]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Seamlessly Expanding a Randomized Phase II Trial to Phase III , 2002, Biometrics.

[13]  C. Punt,et al.  Monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. , 2010, Clinical therapeutics.

[14]  I. Kola,et al.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[15]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Integrating biomarkers in clinical trials , 2011, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[16]  K. Gabriel,et al.  On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance , 1976 .

[17]  H. Schäfer,et al.  A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial , 2004, Statistics in medicine.