Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions.

PURPOSE Randomized phase II (RPh2) designs are popular in cancer clinical trials because of the smaller sample size requirements when multiple treatments are being evaluated. We reviewed the use of RPh2 designs and give comments on future directions. DESIGN The trial design, statistical properties, conduct, data analysis, results, and reporting were examined in RPh2 trials reported from 1986 to 2002. RESULTS A statistical design was reported in only 46% of the 266 cancer trials, and approximately half of those provided inadequate information. Most studies applied randomization to achieve patient comparability, while embedding a one-sample phase II design within each treatment arm. Seventy-five percent of the trials' accruals were within +/- 10% of their targets. The average accrual rate was 3.3 patients per month. Planned interim analyses were reported in 27% of the trials, and 56% of the trials were stopped early; 69%, 13%, 13%, and 4% of the trial discontinuations were because of lack of efficacy, efficacy, toxicity, and slow accrual, respectively. Thirty-nine trials (14%) recommended or started phase III evaluations, with four positive reports in six phase III studies identified. CONCLUSION There is a trend of increasing use of RPh2 designs in cancer research. Continued improvement in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting is required to enhance the quality of RPh2 designs. The accrual rate and success rate of the trials remain low, and therefore, futility stopping rules to terminate ineffective treatment arm(s) should be implemented more frequently. More innovative, flexible RPh2 designs are needed to facilitate the development of effective cancer treatments.

[1]  Thomas J Lynch,et al.  The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the "go or no go" decision. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  D. Brizel,et al.  Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  H. Scher,et al.  Picking the winners in a sea of plenty. , 2002, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[4]  V. Lorusso,et al.  Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  D. Blakey Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery and Development Summit , 2003, Expert opinion on investigational drugs.

[6]  J. Lafitte,et al.  Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer , 2000, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  E. Marubini,et al.  Design and Analysis of Phase II Cancer Trials: A Review of Statistical Methods and Guidelines For Medical Researchers , 1996 .

[8]  Dezheng Huo,et al.  A group sequential, response-adaptive design for randomized clinical trials. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[9]  D. Berry,et al.  Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Final results of a randomized phase III trial of sequential high-dose methotrexate, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin versus etoposide, leucovorin, and fluorouracil versus infusional fluorouracil and cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer: A trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  C. Viscoli,et al.  Stratified randomization for clinical trials. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Marion K Campbell,et al.  The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials. a review. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

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

[14]  B. Cassileth Clinical trials: time for action. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  S S Ellenberg,et al.  Randomized phase II clinical trials. , 1985, Cancer treatment reports.

[16]  Daniel,et al.  There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs--twenty-first Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. , 1998 .

[17]  J S Andersen,et al.  Use of predictive probabilities in phase II and phase III clinical trials. , 1999, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[18]  G. Signoriello,et al.  Statistical design in phase II clinical trials and its application in breast cancer. , 2003, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  D. Potvin,et al.  Multistage designs for phase II clinical trials: statistical issues in cancer research. , 1996, British Journal of Cancer.

[20]  G. Scagliotti,et al.  Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[22]  I. Tannock,et al.  Randomized phase III trial comparing the new potent and selective third-generation aromatase inhibitor vorozole with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients. North American Vorozole Study Group. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  D. Altman Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? , 2002, JAMA.

[24]  E Marubini,et al.  Content and quality of currently published phase II cancer trials. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Seth M Steinberg,et al.  Early selection in a randomized phase II clinical trial , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

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

[27]  D. DeMets,et al.  Fundamentals of Clinical Trials , 1982 .

[28]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  S. Pocock,et al.  Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. , 1975, Biometrics.

[30]  P F Thall,et al.  An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  P F Thall,et al.  Recent developments in the design of phase II clinical trials. , 1995, Cancer treatment and research.

[32]  P F Thall,et al.  Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. , 1994, Biometrics.

[33]  Gary L Rosner,et al.  Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  You‐Gan Wang,et al.  A Bayesian Decision Approach for Sample Size Determination in Phase II Trials , 2001, Biometrics.

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

[36]  R. Simon,et al.  Evaluating the Efficiency of Targeted Designs for Randomized Clinical Trials , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[37]  E. Gehan,et al.  The determinatio of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. , 1961, Journal of chronic diseases.

[38]  S. Lippman,et al.  Design considerations for efficient prostate cancer chemoprevention trials. , 2001, Urology.

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

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

[41]  J Whitehead,et al.  Decision Theoretic Designs for Phase II Clinical Trials with Multiple Outcomes , 1999, Biometrics.

[42]  P Y Liu,et al.  False positive rates of randomized phase II designs. , 1999, Controlled clinical trials.