Literature DB >> 21239164

Reducing sample sizes in two-stage phase II cancer trials by using continuous tumour shrinkage end-points.

James M S Wason1, Adrian P Mander, Tim G Eisen.   

Abstract

Reducing the number of patients required for a clinical trial is important for shortening development time. Phase II cancer trials assess the tumour-shrinking effect of a novel compound through a binary end-point formed from the percentage change in total lesion diameter. We compare single-arm two-stage designs which use the binary end-point to those which directly use the continuous end-point. Using the continuous end-point results in lower expected and maximum sample sizes. For larger trials the reduction is around 37%. This assumes that the dichotomisation point of the continuous end-point is chosen to give the best sample size, with the trial design using the binary end-point performing even worse otherwise. We consider a previous trial designed using a Simon two-stage design and show that if the continuous end-point had been used, the expected and maximum sample sizes of the trial would be reduced by around 50%. Using the continuous end-point in a two-stage cancer trial results in large sample size reductions. The methods discussed in this paper work best when the number of complete responses is low, as is true in several types of cancer. We discuss what could be done if this is not the case.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21239164     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of treatment efficacy using a Bayesian mixture piecewise linear model of longitudinal biomarkers.

Authors:  Lili Zhao; Dai Feng; Brian Neelon; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  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

3.  The power of phase II end-points for different possible mechanisms of action of an experimental treatment.

Authors:  J M S Wason; A Dentamaro; T G Eisen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  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

5.  A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes.

Authors:  S Faye Williamson; Sofía S Villar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

Authors:  Helen Mossop; Michael J Grayling; Ferdia A Gallagher; Sarah J Welsh; Grant D Stewart; James M S Wason
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Innovative trial approaches in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: current use and future potential.

Authors:  Michael J Grayling; Theophile Bigirumurame; Svetlana Cherlin; Luke Ouma; Haiyan Zheng; James M S Wason
Journal:  BMC Rheumatol       Date:  2021-07-02

8.  Using continuous data on tumour measurements to improve inference in phase II cancer studies.

Authors:  James M S Wason; Shaun R Seaman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 2.373

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.