Literature DB >> 23665336

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

Sumithra J Mandrekar1, Ming-Wen An, Daniel J Sargent.   

Abstract

Phase II clinical trials aim to identify promising experimental regimens for further testing in phase III trials. In this review article, we focus on phase II designs for initial predictive biomarker validation to determine if a drug should be developed for an unselected patient population or for a biomarker-defined patient subset only. Several prospective designs for biomarker-directed therapy have been proposed, differing primarily in the study population, or randomization scheme, or both. The design choice is driven by scientific rationale, marker prevalence, strength of preliminary evidence, assay performance, and turn-around times for marker assessment. The enrichment design is most appropriate when compelling preliminary evidence suggests treatment benefit in only certain marker-defined subgroups, the all-comers design is useful when preliminary evidence regarding treatment effects in marker subgroups is unclear, and adaptive designs have the most potential in the setting of multiple treatment options and multiple marker-defined subgroups. We recently proposed a 2-stage phase II design that has the option for direct assignment (i.e., stop randomization and assign all patients to the experimental arm in stage 2) based on interim analysis (IA) results. This design not only recognizes the need for randomization but also acknowledges the possibility of promising but inconclusive results after pre-planned IA. Simulation studies demonstrated that the direct assignment-option design has minimal power loss, marginal increase in type I error rates, and reasonable robustness to population shift effects. Systematic evaluation and implementation of these design strategies in the phase II setting are essential for accelerating the clinical validation of biomarker guided-therapy.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive design; All-comers design; Biomarker; Direct assignment; Enrichment design; Interim analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23665336      PMCID: PMC3779487          DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  22 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 2.  Biomarkers and surrogate end points--the challenge of statistical validation.

Authors:  Marc Buyse; Daniel J Sargent; Axel Grothey; Alastair Matheson; Aimery de Gramont
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution.

Authors:  Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  An adaptive Simon Two-Stage Design for Phase 2 studies of targeted therapies.

Authors:  Cheryl L Jones; Eric Holmgren
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2007-03-06       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Randomized phase II trial designs with biomarkers.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Lisa M McShane; Mei-Yin C Polley; Edward L Korn
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Interim analyses for randomized clinical trials: the group sequential approach.

Authors:  S J Pocock
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Outcome--adaptive randomization: is it useful?

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  All-comers versus enrichment design strategy in phase II trials.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 15.609

9.  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.  The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer.

Authors:  Edward S Kim; Roy S Herbst; Ignacio I Wistuba; J Jack Lee; George R Blumenschein; Anne Tsao; David J Stewart; Marshall E Hicks; Jeremy Erasmus; Sanjay Gupta; Christine M Alden; Suyu Liu; Ximing Tang; Fadlo R Khuri; Hai T Tran; Bruce E Johnson; John V Heymach; Li Mao; Frank Fossella; Merrill S Kies; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; Suzanne E Davis; Scott M Lippman; Waun K Hong
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 39.397

View more
  10 in total

1.  Heterogeneity in Metastatic Breast Cancer 18F-Fluoroestradiol Uptake: Clinically Actionable, Biologically Illuminating?

Authors:  Brenda F Kurland; Steffi Oesterreich
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Adaptive clinical trial designs in oncology.

Authors:  Yong Zang; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Discussion of Trial Designs for Biomarker Identification and Validation Through the Use of Case Studies.

Authors:  Fang-Shu Ou; Ming-Wen An; Amy S Ruppert; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2019-10-24

Review 6.  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 7.  Methods for identification and confirmation of targeted subgroups in clinical trials: A systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Ondra; Alex Dmitrienko; Tim Friede; Alexandra Graf; Frank Miller; Nigel Stallard; Martin Posch
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Advances in Biomarker-Guided Therapy for Pediatric- and Adult-Onset Neuroinflammatory Disorders: Targeting Chemokines/Cytokines.

Authors:  Michael R Pranzatelli
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 7.561

Review 10.  Keeping phase III tuberculosis trials relevant: Adapting to a rapidly changing landscape.

Authors:  Patrick P J Phillips; Carole D Mitnick; James D Neaton; Payam Nahid; Christian Lienhardt; Andrew J Nunn
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 11.069

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.