Adjustment on the Type I Error Rate for a Clinical Trial Monitoring for both Intermediate and Primary Endpoints.

In many clinical trials, a single endpoint is used to answer the primary question and forms the basis for monitoring the experimental therapy. Many trials are lengthy in duration and investigators are interested in using an intermediate endpoint for an accelerated approval, but will rely on the primary endpoint (such as, overall survival) for the full approval of the drug by the Food and Drug Administration. We have designed a clinical trial where both intermediate (progression-free survival, (PFS)) and primary endpoints (overall survival, (OS)) are used for monitoring the trial so the overall type I error rate is preserved at the pre-specified alpha level of 0.05. A two-stage procedure is used. In the first stage, the Bonferroni correction was used where the global type I error rate was allocated to each of the endpoints. In the next stage, the O'Brien-Fleming approach was used to design the boundary for the interim and final analysis for each endpoint. Data were generated assuming several parametric copulas with exponential marginals. Different degrees of dependence, as measured by Kendall's τ, between OS and PFS were assumed: 0 (independence) 0.3, 0.5 and 0.70. This approach is applied to an example in a prostate cancer trial.

[1]  S. Pocock Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[2]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  Interim analyses: the repeated confidence interval approach , 1989 .

[3]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  M. Sklar Fonctions de repartition a n dimensions et leurs marges , 1959 .

[5]  Martin T. Wells,et al.  Model Selection and Semiparametric Inference for Bivariate Failure-Time Data , 2000 .

[6]  K. K. Lan,et al.  Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials , 1983 .

[7]  Susan Todd,et al.  An Adaptive Approach to Implementing Bivariate Group Sequential Clinical Trial Designs , 2003, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[8]  E. Lakatos,et al.  Designing complex group sequential survival trials. , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Anastasios A. Tsiatis,et al.  Group sequential designs for one-sided and two-sided hypothesis testing with provision for early stopping in favor of the null hypothesis , 1994 .

[10]  William Berry,et al.  Multinational, double-blind, phase III study of prednisone and either satraplatin or placebo in patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer progressing after prior chemotherapy: the SPARC trial. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  B W Turnbull,et al.  Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. , 1993, Biometrics.

[12]  P. Sen,et al.  Copulas: concepts and novel applications , 2003 .

[13]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  Accelerated approval of oncology products: a decade of experience. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  J Whitehead,et al.  Sequential methods based on the boundaries approach for the clinical comparison of survival times. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[16]  H. Joe Multivariate Models and Multivariate Dependence Concepts , 1997 .

[17]  R J Cook,et al.  Guidelines for monitoring efficacy and toxicity responses in clinical trials. , 1994, Biometrics.