Literature DB >> 25485277

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

Lindsay A Renfro1, Christina M Coughlin2, Axel M Grothey3, Daniel J Sargent1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Frequently a biomarker capable of defining a patient population with enhanced response to an experimental agent is not fully validated with a known threshold at the start of a phase II trial. When such candidate predictive markers are evaluated and/or validated retrospectively, over-accrual of patients less likely to benefit from the regimen may result, leading to underpowered analyses or sub-optimal patient care.
PURPOSE: We propose an adaptive randomized phase II study design incorporating prospective biomarker threshold identification (or non-identification), possible early futility stopping, potential mid-trial accrual restriction to marker-positive subjects, and final marker and treatment evaluation in the patient population identified as most likely to benefit.
METHODS: An interim analysis is used to determine whether an initially unselected trial should stop early for futility, continue without a promising marker, or adapt accrual and resize (up to a pre-determined maximum) according to a promising biomarker. Final efficacy analyses are performed in the target population identified at the interim as most likely to benefit from the experimental regimen. Simulation studies demonstrate control of false-positive error rates, power, reduced average sample size, and other favorable aspects.
RESULTS: The design performs well at identifying a truly predictive biomarker at interim analysis, and subsequently restricting accrual to patients most likely to benefit from the experimental treatment. Type I and type II error rates are adequately controlled by restricting the range of marker prevalence via the candidate thresholds, and by careful consideration of the timing of interim analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In situations where identification and validation of a naturally continuous biomarker are desired within a randomized phase II trial, the design presented herein offers a potential solution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive design; interim futility analysis; phase II trial; predictive biomarker; randomized clinical trial; threshold identification

Year:  2014        PMID: 25485277      PMCID: PMC4255950          DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2013.12.04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol        ISSN: 2304-3865


  10 in total

1.  Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect.

Authors:  Wenyu Jiang; Boris Freidlin; Richard Simon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  A D Barker; C C Sigman; G J Kelloff; N M Hylton; D A Berry; L J Esserman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Bayesian adaptive randomization designs for targeted agent development.

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

Review 5.  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

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

Authors:  Ming-Wen An; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Biomarkers, subgroup evaluation, and clinical trial design.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer; Daniel J Sargent; Marco Bonetti
Journal:  Discov Med       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.970

8.  A two-stage Bayesian design for co-development of new drugs and companion diagnostics.

Authors:  Stella Wanjugu Karuri; Richard Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  The cross-validated adaptive signature design.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Wenyu Jiang; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer--a step toward personalized medicine.

Authors:  Xian Zhou; Suyu Liu; Edward S Kim; Roy S Herbst; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Biomarker threshold adaptive designs for survival endpoints.

Authors:  Guoqing Diao; Jun Dong; Donglin Zeng; Chunlei Ke; Alan Rong; Joseph G Ibrahim
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Estimating the subgroup and testing for treatment effect in a post-hoc analysis of a clinical trial with a biomarker.

Authors:  Neha Joshi; Jason Fine; Rong Chu; Anastasia Ivanova
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 3.  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

4.  An adaptive design for updating the threshold value of a continuous biomarker.

Authors:  Amy V Spencer; Chris Harbron; Adrian Mander; James Wason; Ian Peers
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Multi-stage adaptive enrichment trial design with subgroup estimation.

Authors:  Neha Joshi; Crystal Nguyen; Anastasia Ivanova
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 1.051

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.