Optimal sequential enrichment designs for phase II clinical trials

In the early phase development of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), a commonly encountered situation is that the MTA is expected to be more effective for a certain biomarker subgroup, say marker-positive patients, but there is no adequate evidence to show that the MTA does not work for the other subgroup, that is, marker-negative patients. After establishing that marker-positive patients benefit from the treatment, it is often of great clinical interest to determine whether the treatment benefit extends to marker-negative patients. The authors propose optimal sequential enrichment (OSE) designs to address this practical issue in the context of phase II clinical trials. The OSE designs evaluate the treatment effect first in marker-positive patients and then in marker-negative patients if needed. The designs are optimal in the sense that they minimize the expected sample size or the maximum sample size under the null hypothesis that the MTA is futile. An efficient, accurate optimization algorithm is proposed to find the optimal design parameters. One important advantage of the OSE design is that the go/no-go interim decision rules are specified prior to the trial conduct, which makes the design particularly easy to use in practice. A simulation study shows that the OSE designs perform well and are ethically more desirable than the commonly used marker-stratified design. The OSE design is applied to an endometrial carcinoma trial. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

[2]  D. Berry,et al.  Reports from the 2010 Clinical and Translational Cancer Research Think Tank Meeting: Design Strategies for Personalized Therapy Trials , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[3]  Two‐stage marker‐stratified clinical trial design in the presence of biomarker misclassification , 2016 .

[4]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Suyu Liu,et al.  Optimal marker‐adaptive designs for targeted therapy based on imperfectly measured biomarkers , 2015 .

[6]  M. Ringnér,et al.  Poor prognosis in carcinoma is associated with a gene expression signature of aberrant PTEN tumor suppressor pathway activity , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Michael Hay,et al.  Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  D. Berry,et al.  I‐SPY 2: An Adaptive Breast Cancer Trial Design in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy , 2009, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[9]  Beibei Guo,et al.  Optimal two-stage enrichment design correcting for biomarker misclassification , 2018, Statistical methods in medical research.

[10]  Richard Simon,et al.  Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials , 1988 .

[11]  W. Brannath,et al.  A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

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

[13]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Two-stage Methods to Implement and Analyze the Biomarker-guided Clinical Trail Designs in the Presence of Biomarker Misclassification , 2016 .

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