Advanced Utilization of Intermediate Endpoints for Making Optimized Cost-Effective Decisions in Seamless Phase II/III Oncology Trials

References

• Anderson, K. A. (2006), “Optimal Spending Functions for Asymmetric Group Sequential Designs,” Biometrical Journal, 48, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Balser, J., Chang, M., and Bliss, R. (2018), “Interpreting the Regulatory Perspective on Adaptive Designs,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10, 123–129. DOI: 10.1080/19466315.2017.1422799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarty, A., and Sridhara, R. (2008), “Use of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Marker in Oncology Trials: Some Regulatory Issues,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 17, 515–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., Anderson, K., Mehrotra, D. V., Rubin, E. H., and Tse, A. (2018), “A 2-in-1 Adaptive Phase 2/3 Design for Expedited Oncology Drug Development,” Contemporary Clinical Trials, 64, 238–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., and Beckman, R. A. (2009a), “Optimal Cost-Effective Go-No Go Decisions in Late Stage Oncology Drug Development,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 1, 159–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2009b), “Hypothesis Testing in a Confirmatory Phase III Trial With a Possible Subset Effect,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 1, 431–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., and Sun, L. (2011), “On Quantification of PFS Effect for Accelerated Approval of Oncology Drugs,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3, 434–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., Sun, L., and Li, C. (2013), “Evaluation of Early Efficacy Endpoints for Proof-of-Concept Trials,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 23, 413–424. DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2011.616969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deepak, L. B., and Mehta, C. (2016), “Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 65–74. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1510061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friede, T., Parsons, N., Stallard, N., Todd, S., Valdés-Márquez, E., Chataway, J., and Nicholas, R. (2011), “Designing a Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trial Using Early Outcomes for Treatment Selection: An Application in Multiple Sclerosis,” Statistics in Medicine, 30, 1528–1540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, A. L., Krishna, R., Khan, A., and Saltzman, J. (2015), “Principled Structured Incorporation of Clinical Knowledge Into Strategic Development Decisions,” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 49, 289–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hee, S. W., Hamborg, T., Day, S., Madan, J., Miller, F., Posch, M., Zohar, S., and Stallard, N. (2016), “Decision-Theoretic Designs for Small Trials and Pilot Studies: A Review,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 25, 1022–1038. DOI: 10.1177/0962280215588245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korn, E. L., Freidlin, B., Abrams, J. S., and Halabi, S. (2012), “Design Issues in Randomized Phase II/III Trials,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 667–671. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krisam, J., and Kieser, M. (2017), “Optimal Interim Decision Rules Based on a Binary Surrogate Outcome for Adaptive Biomarker-Based Trials in Oncology,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 9, 321–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz, C. U., Friede, T., Parsons, N., Todd, S., and Stallard, N. (2014), “Data-Driven Treatment Selection for Seamless Phase II/III Trials Incorporating Early-Outcome Data,” Pharmaceutical Statistics, 13, 238–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2015), “A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Selection in Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials Incorporating Information on Short-Term Endpoints,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 25, 170–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mushti, S. L., Mulkey, F., and Sridhara, R. (2018), “Evaluation of Overall Response Rate and Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immunotherapy Trials,” Clinical Cancer Research, 24, 2268–2275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, N. R., and Ankolekar, S. (2007), “A Bayesian Approach for Incorporating Economic Factors in Sample Size Design for Clinical Trials of Individual Drugs and Portfolios of Drugs,” Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4976–4988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, N. R., Ankolekar, S. A., Antonijevic, Z., and Rajicic, N. (2013), “A Mathematical Model for Maximizing the Value of Phase 3 Drug Development Portfolios Incorporating Budget Constraints and Risk,” Statistics in Medicine, 32, 1763–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, M., Hee, S. W., Madan, J., Posch, M., Day, S., Miller, F., Zohar, S., and Stallard, N. (2018), “Value of Information Methods to Design a Clinical Trial in a Small Population to Optimise a Health Economic Utility Function,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posch, M., Koenig, F., Branson, M., Brannath, W., Dunger-Baldauf, C., and Bauer, P. (2005), “Testing and Estimation in Flexible Group Sequential Designs With Adaptive Treatment Selection,” Statistics in Medicine, 24, 3697–3714. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, K. F., Bobulsky, S. T., David, F. S., Patel, N. R., and Antonijevic, Z. (2015), “Drug Development and the Cost of Capital,” in Optimization of Pharmaceutical R&D Programs and Portfolios, ed. Z. Antonijevic, New York: Springer, pp. 35–47.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, R. (1989), “Optimal Two-Stage Designs for Phase II Clinical Trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stallard, N. (1998), “Sample Size Determination for Phase II Clinical Trials Based on Bayesian Decision Theory,” Biometrics, 54, 279–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2003), “Decision-Theoretic Designs for Phase II Clinical Trials Allowing for Competing Studies,” Biometrics, 59, 402–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2010), “A Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trial Design Incorporating Short-Term Endpoint Information,” Statistics in Medicine, 29, 959–971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallard, N., and Todd, S. (2003), “Sequential Designs for Phase III Clinical Trials Incorporating Treatment Selection,” Statistics in Medicine, 22, 689–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2011), “Seamless Phase II/III Design,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 20, 623–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration (2010), “Draft Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics,” available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm201790.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, Y. (2017), “A ‘Backward’ Bayesian Method for Determination of Criteria for Making Go/No-Go Decisions in the Early Phases,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 9, 153–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar