Literature DB >> 19789306

A comparison of phase II study strategies.

Sally Hunsberger1, Yingdong Zhao, Richard Simon.   

Abstract

The traditional oncology drug development paradigm of single arm phase II studies followed by a randomized phase III study has limitations for modern oncology drug development. Interpretation of single arm phase II study results is difficult when a new drug is used in combination with other agents or when progression-free survival is used as the endpoint rather than tumor shrinkage. Randomized phase II studies are more informative for these objectives but increase both the number of patients and time required to determine the value of a new experimental agent. In this article, we compare different phase II study strategies to determine the most efficient drug development path in terms of number of patients and length of time to conclusion of drug efficacy on overall survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19789306      PMCID: PMC2757284          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-3205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  19 in total

1.  Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Peter F Thall; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Sample size considerations for studies comparing survival curves using historical controls.

Authors:  D O Dixon; R Simon
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Sample size considerations for non-randomized comparative studies.

Authors:  R W Makuch; R M Simon
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1980

4.  Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observation.

Authors:  L V Rubinstein; M H Gail; T J Santner
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1981

5.  Clinical trial designs for the early clinical development of therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Authors:  R M Simon; S M Steinberg; M Hamilton; A Hildesheim; S Khleif; L W Kwak; C L Mackall; J Schlom; S L Topalian; J A Berzofsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  P A Philip; M M Zalupski; V K Vaitkevicius; P Arlauskas; R Chaplen; L K Heilbrun; V Adsay; D Weaver; A F Shields
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: final results of a GERCOR multicenter phase II study.

Authors:  C Louvet; T André; G Lledo; P Hammel; H Bleiberg; C Bouleuc; E Gamelin; M Flesch; E Cvitkovic; A de Gramont
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Using the tolerable-dose diagram in the design of phase I combination chemotherapy trials.

Authors:  E L Korn; R Simon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate.

Authors:  Caio M Rocha Lima; Mark R Green; Robert Rotche; Wilson H Miller; G Mark Jeffrey; Laura A Cisar; Adele Morganti; Nicoletta Orlando; Gabriela Gruia; Langdon L Miller
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Speeding up the evaluation of new agents in cancer.

Authors:  Mahesh K B Parmar; Friederike M-S Barthel; Matthew Sydes; Ruth Langley; Rick Kaplan; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Mark Brady; Nicholas James; Michael A Bookman; Ann-Marie Swart; Wendi Qian; Patrick Royston
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  16 in total

1.  Shortcomings in the clinical evaluation of new drugs: acute myeloid leukemia as paradigm.

Authors:  Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Jeffrey S Abrams; Susan Halabi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes.

Authors:  Robert A Beckman; Jason Clark; Cong Chen
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 84.694

4.  To randomize, or not to randomize, that is the question: using data from prior clinical trials to guide future designs.

Authors:  Alyssa M Vanderbeek; Steffen Ventz; Rifaquat Rahman; Geoffrey Fell; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Lorenzo Trippa; Brian M Alexander
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 12.300

5.  Point/counterpoint: randomized versus single-arm phase II clinical trials for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Authors:  Stuart A Grossman; Karisa C Schreck; Karla Ballman; Brian Alexander
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 12.300

6.  Design of clinical trials for biomarker research in oncology.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2011-12

Review 7.  Better therapeutic trials in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Bookman; C Blake Gilks; Elise C Kohn; Karen O Kaplan; David Huntsman; Carol Aghajanian; Michael J Birrer; Jonathan A Ledermann; Amit M Oza; Kenneth D Swenerton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Brenda F Kurland; Elizabeth R Gerstner; James M Mountz; Lawrence H Schwartz; Christopher W Ryan; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Fiona M Fennessy; Edward A Eikman; Virendra Kumar; Kenneth M Forster; Richard L Wahl; Frank S Lieberman
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 2.546

9.  Blood and marrow transplant clinical trials network state of the Science Symposium 2014.

Authors:  Frederick R Appelbaum; Claudio Anasetti; Joseph H Antin; Harold Atkins; Stella Davies; Steven Devine; Sergio Giralt; Helen Heslop; Ginna Laport; Stephanie J Lee; Brent Logan; Marcelo Pasquini; Michael Pulsipher; Edward Stadtmauer; John R Wingard; Mary M Horowitz
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Randomized phase II/III confirmatory treatment selection design with a change of survival end points: Statistical design of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1216.

Authors:  Qiang Ed Zhang; Qian Wu; Paul M Harari; David I Rosenthal
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 3.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.