Lingyun Ji1, Jennifer Whangbo2, John E Levine3, Todd A Alonzo4. 1. Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: lji@usc.edu. 2. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA, United States of America. 3. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States of America. 4. Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two-stage designs are commonly used for oncology Phase II clinical trials with a binary response endpoint. An issue that has not gained sufficient attention is the potential inefficiency in the usage of two-stage designs due to multiple enrollment suspensions when the proportion of patients inevaluable for response is high. METHODS: Simulation studies were used to assess the performance of Simon's two-stage designs, two-stage designs with a proposed modification, and a single-stage design in the context of Phase II clinical trials with a high proportion of patients inevaluable for response. RESULTS: Two-stage designs can require multiple enrollment disruptions when the inevaluable proportion is high, which can result in unacceptable inefficiency. The proposed modification provides a practical solution to this issue by enrolling an extra number of patients towards the end of the 1st stage, anticipating that a proportion of the patients pending response evaluation could be inevaluable. Single-stage designs with interim monitoring of futility that require no interim accrual suspension can be more efficient than two-stage designs, especially when the accrual and inevaluable rates are high. CONCLUSIONS: Planning of Phase II trials should consider the issue of inefficiency of the two-stage designs, especially for trials with a high inevaluable proportion. Designs with monitoring rules that do not require accrual suspensions may be given more considerations, especially in trials of agents that have already had some evidence for safety and efficacy in other populations.
BACKGROUND: Two-stage designs are commonly used for oncology Phase II clinical trials with a binary response endpoint. An issue that has not gained sufficient attention is the potential inefficiency in the usage of two-stage designs due to multiple enrollment suspensions when the proportion of patients inevaluable for response is high. METHODS: Simulation studies were used to assess the performance of Simon's two-stage designs, two-stage designs with a proposed modification, and a single-stage design in the context of Phase II clinical trials with a high proportion of patients inevaluable for response. RESULTS: Two-stage designs can require multiple enrollment disruptions when the inevaluable proportion is high, which can result in unacceptable inefficiency. The proposed modification provides a practical solution to this issue by enrolling an extra number of patients towards the end of the 1st stage, anticipating that a proportion of the patients pending response evaluation could be inevaluable. Single-stage designs with interim monitoring of futility that require no interim accrual suspension can be more efficient than two-stage designs, especially when the accrual and inevaluable rates are high. CONCLUSIONS: Planning of Phase II trials should consider the issue of inefficiency of the two-stage designs, especially for trials with a high inevaluable proportion. Designs with monitoring rules that do not require accrual suspensions may be given more considerations, especially in trials of agents that have already had some evidence for safety and efficacy in other populations.
Authors: Lawrence H Schwartz; Saskia Litière; Elisabeth de Vries; Robert Ford; Stephen Gwyther; Sumithra Mandrekar; Lalitha Shankar; Jan Bogaerts; Alice Chen; Janet Dancey; Wendy Hayes; F Stephen Hodi; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Nancy Lin; Yan Liu; Patrick Therasse; Jedd D Wolchok; Lesley Seymour Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Philip Pallmann; Alun W Bedding; Babak Choodari-Oskooei; Munyaradzi Dimairo; Laura Flight; Lisa V Hampson; Jane Holmes; Adrian P Mander; Lang'o Odondi; Matthew R Sydes; Sofía S Villar; James M S Wason; Christopher J Weir; Graham M Wheeler; Christina Yap; Thomas Jaki Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Patricia M LoRusso; Aleksandar Sekulic; Jeffrey A Sosman; Winnie S Liang; John Carpten; David W Craig; David B Solit; Alan H Bryce; Jeffrey A Kiefer; Jessica Aldrich; Sara Nasser; Rebecca Halperin; Sara A Byron; Mary Jo Pilat; Scott A Boerner; Diane Durecki; William P D Hendricks; Daniel Enriquez; Tyler Izatt; Jonathan Keats; Christophe Legendre; Svetomir N Markovic; Amy Weise; Fatima Naveed; Jessica Schmidt; Gargi D Basu; Shobana Sekar; Jonathan Adkins; Erica Tassone; Karthigayini Sivaprakasam; Victoria Zismann; Valerie S Calvert; Emanuel F Petricoin; Leslie Anne Fecher; Christopher Lao; J Paul Eder; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Jane Perlmutter; Mark Gorman; Barbara Manica; Lisa Fox; Nicholas Schork; Daniel Zelterman; Michelle DeVeaux; Richard W Joseph; C Lance Cowey; Jeffrey M Trent Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240