Literature DB >> 24697589

Randomized phase II clinical trials.

Sin-Ho Jung1, Daniel J Sargent.   

Abstract

Traditionally, Phase II trials have been conducted as single-arm trials to compare the response probabilities between an experimental therapy and a historical control. Historical control data, however, often have a small sample size, are collected from a different patient population, or use a different response assessment method, so that a direct comparison between a historical control and an experimental therapy may be severely biased. Randomized Phase II trials entering patients prospectively to both experimental and control arms have been proposed to avoid any bias in such cases. The small sample sizes for typical Phase II clinical trials imply that the use of exact statistical methods for their design and analysis is appropriate. In this article, we propose two-stage randomized Phase II trials based on Fisher's exact test, which does not require specification of the response probability of the control arm for testing. Through numerical studies, we observe that the proposed method controls the type I error accurately and maintains a high power. If we specify the response probabilities of the two arms under the alternative hypothesis, we can identify good randomized Phase II trial designs by adopting the Simon's minimax and optimal design concepts that were developed for single-arm Phase II trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fisher’s exact test; Minimax design; Optimal design; Two-stage design; Unbalanced allocation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24697589      PMCID: PMC4024090          DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2014.901343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  11 in total

1.  A flexible design for multiple armed screening trials.

Authors:  D J Sargent; R M Goldberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Early selection in a randomized phase II clinical trial.

Authors:  Seth M Steinberg; David J Venzon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Randomized phase II trials: inevitable or inadvisable?

Authors:  Hui K Gan; Axel Grothey; Gregory R Pond; Malcolm J Moore; Lillian L Siu; Daniel Sargent
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials.

Authors:  Lawrence V Rubinstein; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Sally Hunsberger; S Percy Ivy; Malcolm A Smith
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Randomized phase II trials with a prospective control.

Authors:  Sin-Ho Jung
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Phase II trials in journal of clinical oncology.

Authors:  Stephen A Cannistra
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-18       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A comparative phase II clinical trials procedure for choosing the best of three treatments.

Authors:  C R Palmer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 2.373

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

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

9.  Randomized phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon; R E Wittes; S S Ellenberg
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1985-12

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
  6 in total

1.  Randomized trial of ofatumumab and bendamustine versus ofatumumab, bendamustine, and bortezomib in previously untreated patients with high-risk follicular lymphoma: CALGB 50904 (Alliance).

Authors:  Kristie A Blum; Mei-Yin Polley; Sin-Ho Jung; Travis J Dockter; Sarah Anderson; Eric D Hsi; Nina Wagner-Johnston; Beth Christian; Jim Atkins; Bruce D Cheson; John P Leonard; Nancy L Bartlett
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Randomized Phase II Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Recurrent or Persistent Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Study.

Authors:  Dmitriy Zamarin; Robert A Burger; Michael W Sill; Daniel J Powell; Heather A Lankes; Michael D Feldman; Oliver Zivanovic; Camille Gunderson; Emily Ko; Cara Mathews; Sudarshan Sharma; Andrea R Hagemann; Samir Khleif; Carol Aghajanian
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Optimal, minimax and admissible two-stage design for phase II oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Fei Qin; Jingwei Wu; Feng Chen; Yongyue Wei; Yang Zhao; Zhiwei Jiang; Jianling Bai; Hao Yu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  A stochastically curtailed two-arm randomised phase II trial design for binary outcomes.

Authors:  Martin Law; Michael J Grayling; Adrian P Mander
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2020-08-29       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  Practical and robust test for comparing binomial proportions in the randomized phase II setting.

Authors:  Kristopher Attwood; Soyun Park; Alan D Hutson
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2021-10-09       Impact factor: 1.234

Review 6.  Design and Analysis of Cancer Clinical Trials for Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Sin-Ho Jung
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-05-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.