PURPOSE: Cancer therapies with mechanisms of action which are very different from the more conventional chemotherapies are now being developed. In this article, we investigate the performance of several phase III clinical trial designs, both for testing the overall efficacy of a targeted agent and for testing its efficacy in a subgroup of patients with a tumor marker present. We study different designs and different underlying scenarios assuming continuous markers, and assess the trade-off between the number of patients on the study and the effectiveness of treatment in the subgroup of marker-positive patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We investigate binary outcomes and use simulation studies to determine sample size and power for the different designs and the various scenarios. We also simulate marker prevalence and marker misclassification and evaluate their effect on power and sample size. RESULTS: In general, a targeted design which randomizes patients with the appropriate marker status performs the best in all scenarios with an underlying true predictive marker. Randomizing all patients regardless of their marker values performs as well as or better in most cases than a clinical trial that randomizes the patient to a treatment strategy based on marker value versus standard of care. CONCLUSION: If there is the possibility that the new treatment helps marker-negative patients, or that the cutpoint determining marker status has not been well established and the marker prevalence is large enough, we recommend randomizing all patients regardless of marker values, but using a design such that both the overall and the targeted subgroup hypothesis can be tested.
PURPOSE:Cancer therapies with mechanisms of action which are very different from the more conventional chemotherapies are now being developed. In this article, we investigate the performance of several phase III clinical trial designs, both for testing the overall efficacy of a targeted agent and for testing its efficacy in a subgroup of patients with a tumor marker present. We study different designs and different underlying scenarios assuming continuous markers, and assess the trade-off between the number of patients on the study and the effectiveness of treatment in the subgroup of marker-positive patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We investigate binary outcomes and use simulation studies to determine sample size and power for the different designs and the various scenarios. We also simulate marker prevalence and marker misclassification and evaluate their effect on power and sample size. RESULTS: In general, a targeted design which randomizes patients with the appropriate marker status performs the best in all scenarios with an underlying true predictive marker. Randomizing all patients regardless of their marker values performs as well as or better in most cases than a clinical trial that randomizes the patient to a treatment strategy based on marker value versus standard of care. CONCLUSION: If there is the possibility that the new treatment helps marker-negative patients, or that the cutpoint determining marker status has not been well established and the marker prevalence is large enough, we recommend randomizing all patients regardless of marker values, but using a design such that both the overall and the targeted subgroup hypothesis can be tested.
Authors: Frances A Shepherd; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Eng Huat Tan; Vera Hirsh; Sumitra Thongprasert; Daniel Campos; Savitree Maoleekoonpiroj; Michael Smylie; Renato Martins; Maximiliano van Kooten; Mircea Dediu; Brian Findlay; Dongsheng Tu; Dianne Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Gary Clark; Pedro Santabárbara; Lesley Seymour Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fred R Hirsch; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Paul A Bunn; Michael V Di Maria; Robert Veve; Roy M Bremmes; Anna E Barón; Chan Zeng; Wilbur A Franklin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-09-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless; George D Demetri; Charles D Blanke; Margaret von Mehren; Heikki Joensuu; Laura S McGreevey; Chang-Jie Chen; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Brian J Druker; Beate Kiese; Burton Eisenberg; Peter J Roberts; Samuel Singer; Christopher D M Fletcher; Sandra Silberman; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Jonathan A Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Manuel Cobo; Dolores Isla; Bartomeu Massuti; Ana Montes; Jose Miguel Sanchez; Mariano Provencio; Nuria Viñolas; Luis Paz-Ares; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Miguel Angel Muñoz; Enriqueta Felip; Vicente Alberola; Carlos Camps; Manuel Domine; Jose Javier Sanchez; Maria Sanchez-Ronco; Kathleen Danenberg; Miquel Taron; David Gandara; Rafael Rosell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark McClellan; Joshua Benner; Richard Schilsky; David Epstein; Ray Woosley; Stephen Friend; David Sidransky; Cindy Geoghegan; David Kessler Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean Tunis; Laurence Baker; John Crowley; Patricia Deverka; David Veenstra; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226