Literature DB >> 7997706

An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials.

L G Ensign1, E A Gehan, D S Kamen, P F Thall.   

Abstract

A phase II clinical trial in cancer therapeutics is usually a single-arm study to determine whether an experimental treatment (E) holds sufficient promise to warrant further testing. When the criterion of treatment efficacy is a binary endpoint (response/no response) with probability of response p, we propose a three-stage optimal design for testing H0: p < or = p0 versus H1: p > or = p1, where p1 and p0 are response rates such that E does or does not merit further testing at given levels of statistical significance (alpha) and power (1--beta). The proposed design is essentially a combination of earlier proposals by Gehan and Simon. The design stops with rejection of H1 at stage 1 when there is an initial moderately long run of consecutive treatment failures; otherwise there is continuation to stage 2 and (possibly) stage 3 which have decision rules analogous to those in stages 1 and 2 of Simon's design. Thus, rejection of H1 is possible at any stage, but acceptance only at the final stage. The design is optimal in the sense that expected sample size is minimized when p = p0, subject to the practical constraint that the minimum stage 1 sample size is at least 5. The proposed design has greatest utility when the true response rate of E is small, it is desirable to stop early if there is a moderately long run of early treatment failures, and it is practical to implement a three-stage design. Compared to Simon's optimal two-stage design, the optimal three-stage design has the following features: stage 1 is the same size or smaller and has the possibility of stopping earlier when 0 successes are observed; the expected sample size under the null hypothesis is smaller; stages 1 and 2 generally have more patients than stage 1 of the two-stage design, but a higher probability of early termination under H0; and the total sample size and criteria for rejection of H1 at stage 3 are similar to the corresponding values at the end of stage 2 in the two-stage optimal design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7997706     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780131704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  20 in total

1.  An adaptive design for phase II non-oncology dose selection clinical trials.

Authors:  Zheng Su
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 2.  Ethical issues in the development of new agents.

Authors:  C K Daugherty
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.850

3.  Issues in SMA clinical trial design. The International Coordinating Committee (ICC) for SMA Subcommittee on SMA Clinical Trial Design.

Authors:  P Kaufmann; F Muntoni
Journal:  Neuromuscul Disord       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 4.296

4.  A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  J Jack Lee; Diane D Liu
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Improved two-stage tests for stratified phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Myron N Chang; Jonathan J Shuster; Wei Hou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Early phase clinical trials of anticancer agents in children and adolescents - an ITCC perspective.

Authors:  Lucas Moreno; Andrew D J Pearson; Xavier Paoletti; Irene Jimenez; Birgit Geoerger; Pamela R Kearns; C Michel Zwaan; Francois Doz; Andre Baruchel; Josef Vormoor; Michela Casanova; Stefan M Pfister; Bruce Morland; Gilles Vassal
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  The design of single-arm clinical trials of combination antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive HIV-infected patients.

Authors:  Lu Zheng; Susan L Rosenkranz; Babafemi Taiwo; Michael F Para; Joseph J Eron; Michael D Hughes
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 2.205

8.  A Bayesian design for phase II clinical trials with delayed responses based on multiple imputation.

Authors:  Chunyan Cai; Suyu Liu; Ying Yuan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Efficacy and tolerability of bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  C-H Hsu; T-S Yang; C Hsu; H C Toh; R J Epstein; L-T Hsiao; P-J Chen; Z-Z Lin; T-Y Chao; A-L Cheng
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  A phase II trial of the epothilone B analog ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Authors:  Patrick A Ott; Anne Hamilton; Amanda Jones; Naomi Haas; Tsiporah Shore; Sandra Liddell; Paul J Christos; L Austin Doyle; Michael Millward; Franco M Muggia; Anna C Pavlick
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.