A Bayesian adaptive marker‐stratified design for molecularly targeted agents with customized hierarchical modeling

It is well known that the treatment effect of a molecularly targeted agent (MTA) may vary dramatically, depending on each patient's biomarker profile. Therefore, for a clinical trial evaluating MTA, it is more reasonable to evaluate its treatment effect within different marker subgroups rather than evaluating the average treatment effect for the overall population. The marker-stratified design (MSD) provides a useful tool to evaluate the subgroup treatment effects of MTAs. Under the Bayesian framework, the beta-binomial model is conventionally used under the MSD to estimate the response rate and test the hypothesis. However, this conventional model ignores the fact that the biomarker used in the MSD is, in general, predictive only for the MTA. The response rates for the standard treatment can be approximately consistent across different subgroups stratified by the biomarker. In this paper, we proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model incorporating this biomarker information into consideration. The proposed model uses a hierarchical prior to borrow strength across different subgroups of patients receiving the standard treatment and, therefore, improve the efficiency of the design. Prior informativeness is determined by solving a "customized" equation reflecting the physician's professional opinion. We developed a Bayesian adaptive design based on the proposed hierarchical model to guide the treatment allocation and test the subgroup treatment effect as well as the predictive marker effect. Simulation studies and a real trial application demonstrate that the proposed design yields desirable operating characteristics and outperforms the existing designs.

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

[2]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Optimal marker-strategy clinical trial design to detect predictive markers for targeted therapy. , 2016, Biostatistics.

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

[4]  P. Müller,et al.  Determining the Effective Sample Size of a Parametric Prior , 2008, Biometrics.

[5]  Edward S. Kim,et al.  Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[6]  A. Roy,et al.  Multistage adaptive biomarker-directed targeted design for randomized clinical trials. , 2015, Contemporary clinical trials.

[7]  R. Simon,et al.  On the efficiency of targeted clinical trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  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.

[9]  G. Sledge,et al.  What is targeted therapy? , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[11]  C. Sawyers,et al.  Targeted cancer therapy , 2004, Nature.

[12]  H. Choy,et al.  Cooperative group research efforts in lung cancer 2008: focus on advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2008, Clinical lung cancer.

[13]  J Jack Lee,et al.  Bayesian adaptive randomization designs for targeted agent development , 2008, Clinical trials.

[14]  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.

[15]  D. Goodsell The molecular perspective: tamoxifen and the estrogen receptor. , 2002, Stem cells.

[16]  C. Kang,et al.  The Presence of Mutations in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Gene Is Not a Prognostic Factor for Long-Term Outcome after Surgical Resection of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer , 2013, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[17]  P. M. E. Altham,et al.  The analysis of matched proportions , 1971 .

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

[19]  Ming Tan,et al.  A Two-Stage Adaptive Targeted Clinical Trial Design for Biomarker Performance-Based Sample Size Re-Estimation , 2016 .

[20]  Ying Yuan,et al.  BAYESIAN PHASE I/II ADAPTIVELY RANDOMIZED ONCOLOGY TRIALS WITH COMBINED DRUGS. , 2011, The annals of applied statistics.

[21]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Frequentist Performance of Bayesian Confidence Intervals for Comparing Proportions in 2 × 2 Contingency Tables , 2005, Biometrics.

[22]  Xiang Du,et al.  KRAS mutation testing in metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2012, World journal of gastroenterology.

[23]  S. Mukherjee,et al.  A genomic strategy to refine prognosis in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  Jacob J Oleson,et al.  Bayesian credible intervals for binomial proportions in a single patient trial , 2010, Statistical methods in medical research.