Literature DB >> 22422502

Sequential design of phase II-III cancer trials.

Tze Leung Lai1, Philip W Lavori, Mei-Chiung Shih.   

Abstract

Although traditional phase II cancer trials are usually single arm, with tumor response as endpoint, and phase III trials are randomized and incorporate interim analyses with progression-free survival or other failure time as endpoint, this paper proposes a new approach that seamlessly expands a randomized phase II study of response rate into a randomized phase III study of time to failure. This approach is based on advances in group sequential designs and joint modeling of the response rate and time to event. The joint modeling is reflected in the primary and secondary objectives of the trial, and the sequential design allows the trial to adapt to increase in information on response and survival patterns during the course of the trial and to stop early either for conclusive evidence on efficacy of the experimental treatment or for the futility in continuing the trial to demonstrate it, on the basis of the data collected so far.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22422502      PMCID: PMC4532356          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  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

Review 2.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?

Authors:  Ismail Kola; John Landis
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 84.694

3.  Analysis of phase II studies on targeted agents and subsequent phase III trials: what are the predictors for success?

Authors:  John K Chan; Stefanie M Ueda; Valerie E Sugiyama; Christopher D Stave; Jacob Y Shin; Bradley J Monk; Branimir I Sikic; Kathryn Osann; Daniel S Kapp
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-02-19       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Efficient adaptive designs with mid-course sample size adjustment in clinical trials.

Authors:  Jay Bartroff; Tze Leung Lai
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  A review of phase 2-3 clinical trial designs.

Authors:  Peter F Thall
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2007-09-02       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation.

Authors:  Mark J Ratain; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

8.  Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Sin-Ho Jung; Taiyeong Lee; KyungMann Kim; Stephen L George
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Developing biomarker-specific end points in lung cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Joel W Neal; Justin F Gainor; Alice T Shaw
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  ABO mismatch is associated with increased nonrelapse mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Aaron C Logan; Zhiyu Wang; Kamran Alimoghaddam; Ruby M Wong; Tze Lai; Robert S Negrin; Carl Grumet; Brent R Logan; Mei-Jie Zhang; Stephen R Spellman; Stephanie J Lee; David B Miklos
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research.

Authors:  Samantha F Anderson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.440

5.  Design of phase III trials with long-term survival outcomes based on short-term binary results.

Authors:  Marta Bofill Roig; Yu Shen; Guadalupe Gómez Melis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  A class of two-sample nonparametric statistics for binary and time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Marta Bofill Roig; Guadalupe Gómez Melis
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  The need for thorough phase II studies in medicines development for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Julian A Gray; David Fleet; Bengt Winblad
Journal:  Alzheimers Res Ther       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 6.982

8.  Overrunning in clinical trials: some thoughts from a methodological review.

Authors:  Ileana Baldi; Danila Azzolina; Nicola Soriani; Beatrice Barbetta; Paola Vaghi; Giampaolo Giacovelli; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.