Literature DB >> 28933670

On Enrichment Strategies for Biomarker Stratified Clinical Trials.

Xiaofei Wang1, Jingzhu Zhou1, Ting Wang2, Stephen L George1.   

Abstract

In the era of precision medicine, drugs are increasingly developed to target subgroups of patients with certain biomarkers. In large all-comer trials using a biomarker stratified design, the cost of treating and following patients for clinical outcomes may be prohibitive. With a fixed number of randomized patients, the efficiency of testing certain treatments parameters, including the treatment effect among biomarker-positive patients and the interaction between treatment and biomarker, can be improved by increasing the proportion of biomarker positives on study, especially when the prevalence rate of biomarker positives is low in the underlying patient population. When the cost of assessing the true biomarker is prohibitive, one can further improve the study efficiency by oversampling biomarker positives with a cheaper auxiliary variable or a surrogate biomarker that correlates with the true biomarker. To improve efficiency and reduce cost, we can adopt an enrichment strategy for both scenarios by concentrating on testing and treating patient subgroups that contain more information about specific treatment parameters of primary interest to the investigators. In the first scenario, an enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the cohort of randomized patients by directly oversampling the relevant patients with the true biomarker, while in the second scenario, an auxiliary-variable-enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the randomized cohort based on an inexpensive auxiliary variable, thereby avoiding testing the true biomarker on all screened patients and reducing treatment waiting time. For both designs, we discuss how to choose the optimal enrichment proportion when testing a single hypothesis or two hypotheses simultaneously. At a requisite power, we compare the two new designs with the BSD design in terms of the number of randomized patients and the cost of trial under scenarios mimicking real biomarker stratified trials. The new designs are illustrated with hypothetical examples for designing biomarker-driven cancer trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  auxiliary variables; biomarker stratified design; cost minimization; enrichment strategies; precision medicine; treatment selection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28933670      PMCID: PMC5842146          DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2017.1379532

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


  27 in total

1.  An economic analysis of the INTEREST trial, a randomized trial of docetaxel versus gefitinib as second-/third-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  A M Horgan; P A Bradbury; E Amir; R Ng; J Y Douillard; E S Kim; F A Shepherd; N B Leighl
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  How do you tell whether a breast cancer is HER2 positive? Ongoing studies keep debate in high gear.

Authors:  Charlie Schmidt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-12-29       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Optimal design for epidemiological studies subject to designed missingness.

Authors:  Michele Morara; Louise Ryan; Andres Houseman; Warren Strauss
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2007-12-14       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  HER2 status and benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Chungyeul Kim; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.

Authors:  Makoto Maemondo; Akira Inoue; Kunihiko Kobayashi; Shunichi Sugawara; Satoshi Oizumi; Hiroshi Isobe; Akihiko Gemma; Masao Harada; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Ichiro Kinoshita; Yuka Fujita; Shoji Okinaga; Haruto Hirano; Kozo Yoshimori; Toshiyuki Harada; Takashi Ogura; Masahiro Ando; Hitoshi Miyazawa; Tomoaki Tanaka; Yasuo Saijo; Koichi Hagiwara; Satoshi Morita; Toshihiro Nukiwa
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

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.  An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.968

9.  Comparison of statistical analysis plans in randomize-all phase III trials with a predictive biomarker.

Authors:  Shigeyuki Matsui; Yuki Choai; Takahiro Nonaka
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 10.  Trial designs for personalizing cancer care: a systematic review and classification.

Authors:  Parvin Tajik; Aleiko H Zwinderman; Ben W Mol; Patrick M Bossuyt
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Preoperative and Postoperative Systemic Therapy for Operable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Jamie E Chaft; Yu Shyr; Boris Sepesi; Patrick M Forde
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Interpatient Heterogeneity in Drug Response and Protein Biomarker Expression of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Oliver Ingo Hoffmann; Manuel Regenauer; Bastian Czogalla; Christine Brambs; Alexander Burges; Barbara Mayer
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Auxiliary variable-enriched biomarker-stratified design.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Xiaofei Wang; Haibo Zhou; Jianwen Cai; Stephen L George
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-16       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A Signature Enrichment Design with Bayesian Adaptive Randomization.

Authors:  Fang Xia; Stephen L George; Jing Ning; Liang Li; Xuelin Huang
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 1.404

5.  Statistical Considerations for Subgroup Analyses.

Authors:  Xiaofei Wang; Steven Piantadosi; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2020-12-26       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Identification of early biomarkers of transcriptomics in alveolar macrophage for the prognosis of intubated ARDS patients.

Authors:  Songchang Shi; Shuo Wei; Xiaobin Pan; Lihui Zhang; Shujuan Zhang; Xincai Wang; Songjing Shi; Wei Lin
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 3.320

7.  Design and analysis of biomarker-integrated clinical trials with adaptive threshold detection and flexible patient enrichment.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Xiaofei Wang; Stephen L George; Haibo Zhou
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 8.  International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials.

Authors:  Luciano J Costa; Benjamin A Derman; Susan Bal; Surbhi Sidana; Saurabh Chhabra; Rebecca Silbermann; Jing C Ye; Gordon Cook; Robert F Cornell; Sarah A Holstein; Qian Shi; James Omel; Natalie S Callander; Wee Joo Chng; Vania Hungria; Angelo Maiolino; Edward Stadtmauer; Sergio Giralt; Marcelo Pasquini; Andrzej J Jakubowiak; Gareth J Morgan; Amrita Krishnan; Graham H Jackson; Mohamad Mohty; Maria Victoria Mateos; Meletious A Dimopoulos; Thierry Facon; Andrew Spencer; Jesus San Miguel; Parameswaran Hari; Saad Z Usmani; Salomon Manier; Phillip McCarthy; Shaji Kumar; Francesca Gay; Bruno Paiva
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 11.528

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.