Optimal adaptive single-arm phase II trials under quantified uncertainty

ABSTRACT Single-arm trials with binary endpoint are firmly established in e.g., early clinical oncology. Here, two-stage designs are often employed to allow early termination of the trial in the case of an unexpectedly large or small response rate to the new treatment. Various designs have been proposed over the last few years which usually require strong assumptions about the true response rate during planning. Often, these designs are not robust to deviations from the planning assumptions. In this paper, we define a Bayesian framework for scoring two-stage designs under uncertainty and investigate the characteristics of designs optimizing a commonly employed performance score of Liu et al. The resulting optimal designs are compared with an alternative, utility-based approach incorporating expected power and sample size. We provide insights in the underlying implicit assumptions of using expected power for scoring adaptive designs and relate the global score function to the practice of sample size recalculation based on conditional power. An in-depth comparison of the features of the different performance scores and their respective optimizing designs provides the guidance for practitioners who face the problem of choosing between the various options. A software implementation of the proposed methods is publicly available online.

[1]  M. Kieser,et al.  Test‐compatible confidence intervals for adaptive two‐stage single‐arm designs with binary endpoint , 2018, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[2]  M Kieser,et al.  Point estimation and p‐values in phase II adaptive two‐stage designs with a binary endpoint , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Alan Edelman,et al.  Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing , 2014, SIAM Rev..

[4]  J. Berger Robust Bayesian analysis : sensitivity to the prior , 1990 .

[5]  Olga V. Marchenko,et al.  Nine-year change in statistical design, profile, and success rates of Phase II oncology trials , 2016, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  Lu Cui,et al.  Evaluating the adaptive performance of flexible sample size designs with treatment difference in an interval , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

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

[8]  Iain Dunning,et al.  JuMP: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Optimization , 2015, SIAM Rev..

[9]  M. Kieser,et al.  Optimal adaptive two‐stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials , 2013, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[10]  S. Thompson,et al.  Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase II cancer clinical trials , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[11]  Luis R. Pericchi,et al.  A case for robust Bayesian priors with applications to clinical trials , 2009 .

[12]  J. Denne,et al.  Sample size recalculation using conditional power , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  M. Kieser,et al.  Optimal adaptive two-stage designs for single-arm trial with binary endpoint , 2016, 1605.00249.

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

[15]  Anastasios A Tsiatis,et al.  Adaptive two‐stage designs in phase II clinical trials , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. , 1986, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Matthias Mielke,et al.  The assessment of non‐inferiority in a gold standard design with censored, exponentially distributed endpoints , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Richard Simon,et al.  A Bayesian approach to establishang sample size and monitoring criteria for phase II clinical trials , 1994 .