A Bayesian basket trial design using a calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model

Background: The basket trial evaluates the treatment effect of a targeted therapy in patients with the same genetic or molecular aberration, regardless of their cancer types. Bayesian hierarchical modeling has been proposed to adaptively borrow information across cancer types to improve the statistical power of basket trials. Although conceptually attractive, research has shown that Bayesian hierarchical models cannot appropriately determine the degree of information borrowing and may lead to substantially inflated type I error rates. Methods: We propose a novel calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model approach to evaluate the treatment effect in basket trials. In our approach, the shrinkage parameter that controls information borrowing is not regarded as an unknown parameter. Instead, it is defined as a function of a similarity measure of the treatment effect across tumor subgroups. The key is that the function is calibrated using simulation such that information is strongly borrowed across subgroups if their treatment effects are similar and barely borrowed if the treatment effects are heterogeneous. Results: The simulation study shows that our method has substantially better controlled type I error rates than the Bayesian hierarchical model. In some scenarios, for example, when the true response rate is between the null and alternative, the type I error rate of the proposed method can be inflated from 10% up to 20%, but is still better than that of the Bayesian hierarchical model. Limitation: The proposed design assumes a binary endpoint. Extension of the proposed design to ordinal and time-to-event endpoints is worthy of further investigation. Conclusion: The calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model provides a practical approach to design basket trials with more flexibility and better controlled type I error rates than the Bayesian hierarchical model. The software for implementing the proposed design is available at http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~yyuan/index_code.html

[1]  Donald A Berry,et al.  The Brave New World of clinical cancer research: Adaptive biomarker‐driven trials integrating clinical practice with clinical research , 2015, Molecular oncology.

[2]  A. Redig,et al.  Basket trials and the evolution of clinical trial design in an era of genomic medicine. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[4]  D. Berry,et al.  Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: Efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials , 2013, Clinical trials.

[5]  L. Billingham,et al.  Research methods to change clinical practice for patients with rare cancers. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  P. Thall,et al.  Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  D. Sargent,et al.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: basket trials, umbrella trials, and other master protocols: a review and examples. , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian Designs for Phase I-II Clinical Trials , 2016 .

[9]  P. Thall,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to phase II trials in diseases with multiple subtypes , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  S. Ornes Core Concept: Basket trial approach capitalizes on the molecular mechanisms of tumors , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  M. A. Pierotti,et al.  Rearrangements of NTRK1 gene in papillary thyroid carcinoma , 2010, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology.

[12]  Ying Yuan,et al.  BLAST: Bayesian latent subgroup design for basket trials accounting for patient heterogeneity , 2018 .

[13]  Richard Simon,et al.  Implementing personalized cancer genomics in clinical trials , 2013, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  B. Freidlin,et al.  Borrowing Information across Subgroups in Phase II Trials: Is It Useful? , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.