Literature DB >> 22700865

A 2-stage phase II design with direct assignment option in stage II for initial marker validation.

Ming-Wen An1, Sumithra J Mandrekar, Daniel J Sargent.   

Abstract

Biomarkers are critical to targeted therapies, as they may identify patients more likely to benefit from a treatment. Several prospective designs for biomarker-directed therapy have been previously proposed, differing primarily in the study population, randomization scheme, or both. Recognizing the need for randomization, yet acknowledging the possibility of promising but inconclusive results after a stage I cohort of randomized patients, we propose a 2-stage phase II design on marker-positive patients that allows for direct assignment in a stage II cohort. In stage I, marker-positive patients are equally randomized to receive experimental treatment or control. Stage II has the option to adopt "direct assignment" whereby all patients receive experimental treatment. Through simulation, we studied the power and type I error rate of our design compared with a balanced randomized two-stage design, and conducted sensitivity analyses to study the effect of timing of stage I analysis, population shift effects, and unbalanced randomization. Our proposed design has minimal loss in power (<1.8%) and increased type I error rate (<2.1%) compared with a balanced randomized design. The maximum increase in type I error rate in the presence of a population shift was between 3.1% and 5%, and the loss in power across possible timings of stage I analysis was less than 1.2%. Our proposed design has desirable statistical properties with potential appeal in practice. The direct assignment option, if adopted, provides for an "extended confirmation phase" as an alternative to stopping the trial early for evidence of efficacy in stage I.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22700865      PMCID: PMC3421043          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0686

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?

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

2.  Sorafenib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer that harbor K-ras mutations: a brief report.

Authors:  Egbert F Smit; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Frederik B Thunnissen; Monique M Hochstenbach; Robert-Jan van Suylen; Pieter E Postmus
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 15.609

3.  Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Richard Simon; Aboubakar Maitournam
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Factors associated with participation in breast cancer treatment clinical trials.

Authors:  Nancy E Avis; Kevin W Smith; Carol L Link; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Edgardo Rivera
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-04-20       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases.

Authors:  R Simon; S-J Wang
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.550

6.  Bayesian adaptive randomization designs for targeted agent development.

Authors:  J Jack Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 7.  Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials.

Authors:  Daniel J Sargent; Barbara A Conley; Carmen Allegra; Laurence Collette
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Targeting KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with the Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib.

Authors:  Jaime Acquaviva; Donald L Smith; Jim Sang; Julie C Friedland; Suqin He; Manuel Sequeira; Chaohua Zhang; Yumiko Wada; David A Proia
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 6.261

9.  Clinical trial designs for prospective validation of biomarkers.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Axel Grothey; Matthew P Goetz; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Am J Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2005

10.  Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset.

Authors:  Sue-Jane Wang; Robert T O'Neill; H M James Hung
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2007 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.894

  10 in total
  10 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Miranta Antoniou; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Andrea L Jorgensen
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2017-01-25

3.  Drug designs fulfilling the requirements of clinical trials aiming at personalizing medicine.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-01

4.  Adaptive randomized phase II design for biomarker threshold selection and independent evaluation.

Authors:  Lindsay A Renfro; Christina M Coughlin; Axel M Grothey; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-03-01

Review 5.  Molecular and clinical implementations of ovarian cancer mouse avatar models.

Authors:  Amira A Zayed; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Paul Haluska
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09

Review 6.  A review of phase II trial designs for initial marker validation.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Ming-Wen An; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 7.  Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Lindsay A Renfro; Himel Mallick; Ming-Wen An; Daniel J Sargent; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 12.111

Review 8.  From bench to bedside: lessons learned in translating preclinical studies in cancer drug development.

Authors:  Christopher H Lieu; Aik-Choon Tan; Stephen Leong; Jennifer R Diamond; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  The direct assignment option as a modular design component: an example for the setting of two predefined subgroups.

Authors:  Ming-Wen An; Xin Lu; Daniel J Sargent; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 2.238

Review 10.  Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Miranta Antoniou; Andrea L Jorgensen; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.