Stochastically curtailed phase II clinical trials
- PMID: 16900560
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.2653
Stochastically curtailed phase II clinical trials
Abstract
Phase II trials often test the null hypothesis H(0): p <or= p(0) versus H(1): p >or=p(1), where p is the true unknown proportion responding to the new treatment, p(0) is the greatest response proportion which is deemed clinically ineffective, and p(1) is the smallest response proportion which is deemed clinically effective. In order to expose the fewest number of patients to an ineffective therapy, phase II clinical trials should terminate early when the trial fails to produce sufficient evidence of therapeutic activity (i.e. if p <or=p(0)). Simultaneously, if a treatment is highly effective (i.e. if p>or=p(1)), the trial should declare the drug effective in the fewest patients possible to allow for advancement to a phase III comparative trial. Several statistical designs, including Simon's minimax and optimal designs, have been developed that meet these requirements. In this paper, we propose three alternative designs that rely upon stochastic curtailment based on conditional power. We compare and contrast the properties of the three approaches: (1) stochastically curtailed (SC) binomial tests, (2) stochastically curtailed (SC) Simon's optimal design, and (3) SC Simon's minimax design to those of Simon's minimax and Simon's optimal designs. For each of these designs we compare and contrast the number of opportunities for study termination, the expected sample size of the trial under the null hypothesis (p <or=p(0)), and the effective type I and type II errors. We also present graphical tools for monitoring phase II clinical trials with stochastic curtailment using conditional power.
Similar articles
-
Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials.Contemp Clin Trials. 2008 Jan;29(1):32-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.04.008. Epub 2007 May 6. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008. PMID: 17544337
-
Curtailed two-stage designs in Phase II clinical trials.Stat Med. 2008 Dec 20;27(29):6175-89. doi: 10.1002/sim.3424. Stat Med. 2008. PMID: 18816510
-
Adaptive two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials.Stat Med. 2006 Oct 15;25(19):3382-95. doi: 10.1002/sim.2501. Stat Med. 2006. PMID: 16479547
-
Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions.J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;23(19):4450-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.197. J Clin Oncol. 2005. PMID: 15994154 Review.
-
[New trends in assessment in anticancer treatments by phase II clinical trials].Bull Cancer. 2000 Jul;87(7-8):551-6. Bull Cancer. 2000. PMID: 10969213 Review. French.
Cited by
-
A two-stage phase II clinical trial design with nested criteria for early stopping and efficacy.Pharm Stat. 2019 Nov;18(6):700-713. doi: 10.1002/pst.1965. Epub 2019 Sep 10. Pharm Stat. 2019. PMID: 31507079 Free PMC article.
-
A stochastically curtailed two-arm randomised phase II trial design for binary outcomes.Pharm Stat. 2021 Mar;20(2):212-228. doi: 10.1002/pst.2067. Epub 2020 Aug 29. Pharm Stat. 2021. PMID: 32860470 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
A stochastically curtailed single-arm phase II trial design for binary outcomes.J Biopharm Stat. 2022 Sep 3;32(5):671-691. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2021.2009498. Epub 2022 Jan 25. J Biopharm Stat. 2022. PMID: 35077268 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Evolution of Phase II Oncology Trial Design: from Single Arm to Master Protocol.Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023 Jul;57(4):823-838. doi: 10.1007/s43441-023-00500-w. Epub 2023 Mar 4. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023. PMID: 36871111 Review.
-
Approaches to handling data when a phase II trial deviates from the pre-specified Simon's two-stage design.Stat Med. 2008 Dec 20;27(29):6190-208. doi: 10.1002/sim.3426. Stat Med. 2008. PMID: 18800338 Free PMC article.