Literature DB >> 12161080

An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete and partial response information separately.

Katherine S Panageas1, Alex Smith, Mithat Gönen, Paul B Chapman.   

Abstract

Phase II clinical trials in oncology are performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of a new treatment regimen. A common measure of efficacy for these trials is the proportion of patients who obtain a response measured by tumor shrinkage. It is standard practice to classify this response into the following categories: (1) complete response (CR); (2) partial response (PR); (3) stable disease; and (4) progression of disease. Tumor response is then treated as a binary variable whereby patients who achieve either a CR or a PR are considered responders and all others nonresponders. A two-stage design that allows for early termination of the trial if the treatment shows little efficacy such as Gehan or Simon gives equal weight to a CR and a PR. However, a CR, defined as complete disappearance of the tumor, is more likely than a PR to signal an important antitumor effect and result in a survival advantage. We argue that CRs and PRs should be considered separately, and hence we propose a two-stage design with a multilevel endpoint (i.e., CR, PR, and nonresponders). This design is an extension of Simon's optimal two-stage design and is based on a trinomial model. For most scenarios the proposed design results in an improvement in expected sample size compared to Simon's optimal design. Design optimization was performed by a direct search based on enumerating exact trinomial probabilities. Sample size tables are provided for parameter sets commonly used in the oncologic setting. Software is available by contacting the authors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12161080     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00217-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  6 in total

1.  A method for utilizing co-primary efficacy outcome measures to screen regimens for activity in two-stage Phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  Michael W Sill; Larry Rubinstein; Samuel Litwin; Greg Yothers
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Proper inference from Simon's two-stage designs.

Authors:  Tatsuki Koyama; Heidi Chen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-07-20       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A comparison of a new multinomial stopping rule with stopping rules of fleming and gehan in single arm phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  John R Goffin; Greg R Pond; Dongsheng Tu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Stopping rules employing response rates, time to progression, and early progressive disease for phase II oncology trials.

Authors:  John R Goffin; Greg R Pond
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  The choice of test in phase II cancer trials assessing continuous tumour shrinkage when complete responses are expected.

Authors:  James M S Wason; Adrian P Mander
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Salvage Therapy With Sunitinib, Docetaxel (Tyxan) and Cisplatinum Followed by Maintenance Vinorelbine for Unresectable/Metastatic Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer: Stage 1 of a Simon 2 Stage Clinical Trial. [Corrected].

Authors:  Cheng-Jeng Tai; Chien-Kai Wang; Chen-Jei Tai; Ching Tzao; Yung-Chang Lien; Chih-Cheng Hsieh; Cheng-I Hsieh; Hong-Cheng Wu; Chih-Hsiung Wu; Chun-Chao Chang; Ray-Jade Chen; Hung-Yi Chiou
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.