Reducing the average number of patients needed in a phase II trial through novel design

References

• DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:711–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrowsmith J. Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10:328–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials 2013;10:344–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JJ, Feng L. Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4450–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. MD, USA: FDA; 2010. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm201790.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials-a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2008;3:11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein L, Crowley J, Ivy P, et al. Randomized phase II designs. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:1883–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group sequential methods. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977;64:191–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979;35:549–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead J, Stratton I. Group sequential clinical trials with triangular continuation regions. Biometrics 1983;39:227–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pampallona S, Tsiatis AA. Group sequential designs for one-sided and two-sided hypothesis testing with provision for early stopping in favor of the null hypothesis. J Stat Plan Infer 1994;42:19–35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuster J. Optimal two-stage designs for single arm phase II cancer trials. J Biopharm Stat 2002;12:39–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wason JM, Mander AP. Minimizing the maximum expected sample size in two-stage phase II clinical trials with continuous outcomes. J Biopharm Stat 2012;22:836–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung S-H, Lee T, Kim K, George SL. Admissible two–stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Statist Med 2004;23:561–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason J, Mander AP, Thompson SG. Optimal multistage designs for randomised clinical trials with continuous outcomes. Statist Med 2012;31:301–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowden J, Wason J. Identifying combined design and analysis procedures in two–stage trials with a binary end point. Statist Med 2012;31:3874–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mander AP, Wason JMS, Sweeting MJ, Thompson SG. Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials that incorporate the expected sample size under the alternative hypothesis. Pharm Stat 2012;11:91–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:1–10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mander AP, Thompson SG. Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase II cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2010;31:572–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen TT. Optimal three–stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Statist Med 1997;16:2701–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lan KG, Lachin JM. Implementation of group sequential logrank tests in a maximum duration trial. Biometrics 1990;46:759–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim K, Tsiatis AA. Study duration for clinical trials with survival response and early stopping rule. Biometrics 1990;46:81–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassmer G. Planning and analyzing adaptive group sequential survival trials. Biometrical J 2006;48:714–29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed JC. Toward a new era in cancer treatment: message from the new editor-in-chief. Mol Cancer Therapeut 2012;11:1621–2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydes M, Parmar M, James N, et al. Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials 2009;10:39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumville JC, Hahn S, Miles JNV, Torgerson DJ. The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials 2006;27:1–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallard N. Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Statist Med 2012;31:1031–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason JMS, Jaki T, Stallard N. Planning multi-arm screening studies within the context of a drug development program. Statist Med 2013;32:3424–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason J, Magirr D, Law M, Jaki T. Some recommendations for multi-arm multi-stage trials. Stat Meth Med Res 2012 (Epub ahead of print)
   Google Scholar
• Magirr D, Jaki T, Whitehead J. A generalized Dunnett test for multi-arm multi-stage clinical studies with treatment selection. Biometrika 2012;99:494–501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason J, Jaki T. Optimal design of multi–arm multi–stage trials. Statist Med 2012;31:4269–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson AR, Sill MW. Drop–the–Losers Design: normal case. Biometrical J 2005;47:257–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sill MW, Sampson AR. Drop-the-losers design: binomial case. Comp Stat Data Analy 2009;53:586–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li G, Zhu J, Ouyang SP, et al. Adaptive designs for interim dose selection. Stat Biopharm Res 2009;1:366–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Scala L, Glimm E. Time-to-event analysis with treatment arm selection at interim. Statist Med 2011;30:3067–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretz F, Schmidli H, Konig F, et al. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biometrical J 2006;48:623–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biometrical J 2006;48:635–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason J, Bowden J. Design issues in multi-stage drop-the-losers designs. Stat Meth Med Res 2013 (in press)
   Google Scholar
• Stallard N, Friede T. A group–sequential design for clinical trials with treatment selection. Statist Med 2008;27:6209–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippa L, Lee EQ, Wen PY, et al. Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3258–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason J, Trippa L. A comparison of Bayesian adaptive randomization and multi-stage designs for multi-arm clinical trials. Statist Med 2013 (in press)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon R, Maitournam A. Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:6759–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate end points–the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:309–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones CL, Holmgren E. An adaptive Simon Two-Stage Design for Phase 2 studies of targeted therapies. Contemp Clin Trials 2007;28:654–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S-J, O'Neill RT, Hung HM. Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset. Pharm Stat 2007;6:227–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon N, Simon R. Adaptive enrichment designs for clinical trials. Biostatistics 2013;14:613--25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freidlin B, Simon R. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:7872–788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freidlin B, Korn EL, Gray R, Martin A. Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:4368–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreras M, Brannath W. Shrinkage estimation in two–stage adaptive designs with midtrial treatment selection. Statist Med 2013;10:1677--90
   Google Scholar
• Bowden J, Brannath W, Glimm E. Empirical Bayes estimation of the selected treatment mean for two-stage drop-the-loser trials: a meta-analytic approach. Statist Med 2013 (Epub ahead of print)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimani PK, Todd S, Stallard N. Conditionally unbiased estimation in phase II/III clinical trials with early stopping for futility. Statist Med 2013;32:2893–910
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampson LV, Jennison C. Group sequential tests for delayed responses (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc Series B (Stat Methodol) 2013;75:3–54
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royston P, Parmar MK, Qian W. Novel designs for multi–arm clinical trials with survival outcomes with an application in ovarian cancer. Statist Med 2003;22:2239–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Muller P. Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. New York: CRC press; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Stallard N. A confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trial design incorporating short–term endpoint information. Statist Med 2010;29:959–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friede T, Parsons N, Stallard N, et al. Designing a seamless phase II/III clinical trial using early outcomes for treatment selection: an application in multiple sclerosis. Statist Med 2011;30:1528–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. Biometrics 1993;49:741–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook RJ, Farewell VT. Guidelines for monitoring efficacy and toxicity responses in clinical trials. Biometrics 1994;50:1146–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nebiyou Bekele B, Shen Y. A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a Phase I/II Dose–Finding Trial. Biometrics 2005;61:343–54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar