Literature DB >> 17544337

Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials.

Kun Chen1, Michael Shan.   

Abstract

The common objective of oncology phase II trials is to evaluate the anti-tumor activity of a new agent and to determine whether the new drug warrants further investigation. For cancer drugs that significantly shrink tumors, response (CR and PR) rate is usually the primary endpoint in cancer phase II trials for testing H(0): P<or=P(0) vs H(1): P>or=P(1), where P(0) and P(1) are response rates which does not or does warrant further investigation given the rate of false positive (alpha) and false negative (beta). Multiple-stage designs including two-stage and three-stage have been developed by several authors. For example, Simon's optimal two-stage design [Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:1-10], Ensign et al. optimal three-stage design with restriction at the first stage [Ensign LG, Gehan EA, Kamen DS, Thall PF. An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 1994;13:1727-1736], Chen's optimal three-stage design without any restriction [Chen TT. Optimal three-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 1997;16:2701-2711], etc. However, all the above designs only early terminate a trial due to lack of activity of the study drug. Fleming's multiple-stage design [Fleming TR. One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 1982;38:143-151] allows early stopping for either sufficient activity or lack of activity. But his design does not attempt to optimize its efficiency. We extend Chen's [Chen TT. Optimal three-stage designs for phase II clinical trials Stat Med 1997;16:2701-2711] design and propose an optimal and a minimax design for three-stage cancer phase II trials which allows early stopping under both hypotheses. The design is optimal in the sense that the average sample number (ASN) is minimized under P=P(0). The minimax design minimizes the maximal sample size (N) and then given this value of N minimizes the average sample number under P=P(0).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17544337     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  11 in total

1.  Incorporating biomarkers into clinical trial designs: points to consider.

Authors:  Edward Bradley
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  An adaptive design for phase II non-oncology dose selection clinical trials.

Authors:  Zheng Su
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

3.  Exploring the statistical and clinical impact of two interim analyses on the Phase II design with option for direct assignment.

Authors:  Ming-Wen An; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Martin J Edelman; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Extended two-stage adaptive designs with three target responses for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  Seongho Kim; Weng Kee Wong
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  Optimal continuous-monitoring design of single-arm phase II trial based on the simulated annealing method.

Authors:  Nan Chen; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Stopping for efficacy in single-arm phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  Rezoanoor Rahman; M Iftakhar Alam
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 1.416

7.  Treatment-subgroup interaction: an example from a published, phase II clinical trial.

Authors:  Carolyn E Behrendt; Edmund A Gehan
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2009-02-21       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Combination of Recombinant Adenovirus-p53 with Radiochemotherapy in Unresectable Pancreatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jin-Luan Li; Yong Cai; Shan-Wen Zhang; Shao-Wen Xiao; Xiao-Fan Li; You-Jia Duan; Yong-Heng Li; Bo Xu; Kun Yan
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.087

9.  A confidence function-based posterior probability design for phase II cancer trials.

Authors:  Minghua Shan
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 1.894

10.  Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  A P Mander; S G Thompson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.