Literature DB >> 26261263

Rational Clinical Experiment: Assessing Prior Probability and Its Impact on the Success of Phase II Clinical Trials.

Daniel M Halperin1, J Jack Lee1, Cecile Gonzales Dagohoy1, James C Yao2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Despite a robust clinical trial enterprise and encouraging phase II results, the vast minority of oncologic drugs in development receive regulatory approval. In addition, clinicians occasionally make therapeutic decisions based on phase II data. Therefore, clinicians, investigators, and regulatory agencies require improved understanding of the implications of positive phase II studies. We hypothesized that prior probability of eventual drug approval was significantly different across GI cancers, with substantial ramifications for the predictive value of phase II studies.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of phase II studies conducted between 1999 and 2004 and compared studies against US Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute databases of approved indications for drugs tested in those studies.
RESULTS: In all, 317 phase II trials were identified and followed for a median of 12.5 years. Following completion of phase III studies, eventual new drug application approval rates varied from 0% (zero of 45) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma to 34.8% (24 of 69) for colon adenocarcinoma. The proportion of drugs eventually approved was correlated with the disease under study (P < .001). The median type I error for all published trials was 0.05, and the median type II error was 0.1, with minimal variation. By using the observed median type I error for each disease, phase II studies have positive predictive values ranging from less than 1% to 90%, depending on primary site of the cancer.
CONCLUSION: Phase II trials in different GI malignancies have distinct prior probabilities of drug approval, yielding quantitatively and qualitatively different predictive values with similar statistical designs. Incorporation of prior probability into trial design may allow for more effective design and interpretation of phase II studies.
© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26261263      PMCID: PMC4554752          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  17 in total

1.  A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program.

Authors:  John F Scoggins; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints.

Authors:  Manish R Sharma; Theodore G Karrison; Yuyan Jin; Robert R Bies; Michael L Maitland; Walter M Stadler; Mark J Ratain
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 3.  Economics of new oncology drug development.

Authors:  Joseph A DiMasi; Henry G Grabowski
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Phillip M Boiselle
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Joshua N Mirkin; Thomas K Oliver; Christopher G Azzoli; Donald A Berry; Otis W Brawley; Tim Byers; Graham A Colditz; Michael K Gould; James R Jett; Anita L Sabichi; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Douglas E Wood; Amir Qaseem; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation: oncology drug development on speed?

Authors:  James C Yao; Funda Meric-Bernstam; J Jack Lee; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi; Hormuzd A Katki; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Neil Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; Anil K Chaturvedi; Gerard A Silvestri; Tom L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Cancer statistics, 2013.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.