Two-stage phase II oncology designs using short-term endpoints for early stopping

Phase II oncology trials are conducted to evaluate whether the tumour activity of a new treatment is promising enough to warrant further investigation. The most commonly used approach in this context is a two-stage single-arm design with binary endpoint. As for all designs with interim analysis, its efficiency strongly depends on the relation between recruitment rate and follow-up time required to measure the patients’ outcomes. Usually, recruitment is postponed after the sample size of the first stage is achieved up until the outcomes of all patients are available. This may lead to a considerable increase of the trial length and with it to a delay in the drug development process. We propose a design where an intermediate endpoint is used in the interim analysis to decide whether or not the study is continued with a second stage. Optimal and minimax versions of this design are derived. The characteristics of the proposed design in terms of type I error rate, power, maximum and expected sample size as well as trial duration are investigated. Guidance is given on how to select the most appropriate design. Application is illustrated by a phase II oncology trial in patients with advanced angiosarcoma, which motivated this research.

[1]  Tatsuki Koyama,et al.  Proper inference from Simon's two‐stage designs , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

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

[3]  M. Parmar,et al.  Impact of lack-of-benefit stopping rules on treatment effect estimates of two-arm multi-stage (TAMS) trials with time to event outcome , 2013, Trials.

[4]  Katherine S Panageas,et al.  An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete and partial response information separately. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Group sequential tests for delayed responses , 2008 .

[6]  T. Chen,et al.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase ii clinical trials with differentiation of complete and partial responses , 2000 .

[7]  J. Blay,et al.  Sorafenib for patients with advanced angiosarcoma: a phase II Trial from the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO). , 2012, The oncologist.

[8]  S E Vollset,et al.  Confidence intervals for a binomial proportion. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  J. Wason,et al.  Optimal multistage designs for randomised clinical trials with continuous outcomes , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. , 2014, JAMA.

[11]  Optimal two-stage designs for single-arm phase II oncology trials with two binary endpoints. , 2010, Methods of information in medicine.

[12]  Hua Jin,et al.  A design of phase II cancer trials using total and complete response endpoints , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  M. Christian,et al.  Novel Designs and End Points for Phase II Clinical Trials , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[14]  J. Bryant,et al.  Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. , 1995, Biometrics.

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

[16]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Identifying combined design and analysis procedures in two-stage trials with a binary end point , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Michael L Maitland,et al.  RECIST: no longer the sharpest tool in the oncology clinical trials toolbox---point. , 2012, Cancer research.

[18]  J. Blay,et al.  Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel for unresectable angiosarcoma: the ANGIOTAX Study. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Xun Lin,et al.  A two‐stage phase II trial design utilizing both primary and secondary endpoints , 2008, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[20]  M. Kieser,et al.  Estimation of secondary endpoints in two‐stage phase II oncology trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[22]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Group sequential tests for delayed responses (with discussion) , 2013 .

[23]  D. Sargent,et al.  Randomized phase II trials: inevitable or inadvisable? , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  Adrian P Mander,et al.  Admissible two‐stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials that incorporate the expected sample size under the alternative hypothesis , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[25]  G. Yule On the Methods of Measuring Association between Two Attributes , 1912 .