Dataset Information

Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether the use of Bayesian adaptive randomized (AR) designs in clinical trials for glioblastoma is feasible and would allow for more efficient trials.We generated an adaptive randomization procedure that was retrospectively applied to primary patient data from four separate phase II clinical trials in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. We then compared AR designs with more conventional trial designs by using realistic hypothetical scenarios consistent with survival data reported in the literature. Our primary end point was the number of patients needed to achieve a desired statistical power.If our phase II trials had been a single, multiarm trial using AR design, 30 fewer patients would have been needed compared with a multiarm balanced randomized (BR) design to attain the same power level. More generally, Bayesian AR trial design for patients with glioblastoma would result in trials with fewer overall patients with no loss in statistical power and in more patients being randomly assigned to effective treatment arms. For a 140-patient trial with a control arm, two ineffective arms, and one effective arm with a hazard ratio of 0.6, a median of 47 patients would be randomly assigned to the effective arm compared with 35 in a BR trial design.Given the desire for control arms in phase II trials, an increasing number of experimental therapeutics, and a relatively short time for events, Bayesian AR designs are attractive for clinical trials in glioblastoma.

SUBMITTER: Trippa L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3434985 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Trippa Lorenzo L Lee Eudocia Q EQ Wen Patrick Y PY Batchelor Tracy T TT Cloughesy Timothy T Parmigiani Giovanni G Alexander Brian M BM

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20120529 26

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate whether the use of Bayesian adaptive randomized (AR) designs in clinical trials for glioblastoma is feasible and would allow for more efficient trials.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We generated an adaptive randomization procedure that was retrospectively applied to primary patient data from four separate phase II clinical trials in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. We then compared AR designs with more conventional trial designs by using realistic hypothetical scen ...[more]

PMID: 22649140

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBevacizumab has promising activity against recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). However, acquired resistance to this agent results in tumor recurrence. We hypothesized that vorinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor with anti-angiogenic effects, would prevent acquired resistance to bevacizumab.MethodsThis multicenter phase II trial used a Bayesian adaptive design to randomize patients with recurrent GBM to bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus vorinostat with the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes assessment (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor module [MDASI-BT]). Eligible patients were adults (≥18 y) with histologically confirmed GBM recurrent after prior radiation therapy, with adequate organ function, KPS ≥60, and no prior bevacizumab or HDAC inhibitors.ResultsNinety patients (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 49, bevacizumab: 41) were enrolled, of whom 74 were evaluable for PFS (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 44, bevacizumab: 30). Median PFS (3.7 vs 3.9 mo, P = 0.94, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63 [95% CI: 0.38, 1.06, P = 0.08]), median OS (7.8 vs 9.3 mo, P = 0.64, HR 0.93 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.6, P = 0.79]) and clinical benefit were similar between the 2 arms. Toxicity (grade ≥3) in 85 evaluable patients included hypertension (n = 37), neurological changes (n = 2), anorexia (n = 2), infections (n = 9), wound dehiscence (n = 2), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (n = 2), and colonic perforation (n = 1).ConclusionsBevacizumab combined with vorinostat did not yield improvement in PFS or OS or clinical benefit compared with bevacizumab alone or a clinical benefit in adults with recurrent GBM. This trial is the first to test a Bayesian adaptive design with adaptive randomization and Bayesian continuous monitoring in patients with primary brain tumor and demonstrates the feasibility of using complex Bayesian adaptive design in a multicenter setting.

Project description:BackgroundBayesian adaptive methods are increasingly being used to design clinical trials and offer several advantages over traditional approaches. Decisions at analysis points are usually based on the posterior distribution of the treatment effect. However, there is some confusion as to whether control of type I error is required for Bayesian designs as this is a frequentist concept.MethodsWe discuss the arguments for and against adjusting for multiplicities in Bayesian trials with interim analyses. With two case studies we illustrate the effect of including interim analyses on type I/II error rates in Bayesian clinical trials where no adjustments for multiplicities are made. We propose several approaches to control type I error, and also alternative methods for decision-making in Bayesian clinical trials.ResultsIn both case studies we demonstrated that the type I error was inflated in the Bayesian adaptive designs through incorporation of interim analyses that allowed early stopping for efficacy and without adjustments to account for multiplicity. Incorporation of early stopping for efficacy also increased the power in some instances. An increase in the number of interim analyses that only allowed early stopping for futility decreased the type I error, but also decreased power. An increase in the number of interim analyses that allowed for either early stopping for efficacy or futility generally increased type I error and decreased power.ConclusionsCurrently, regulators require demonstration of control of type I error for both frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs, particularly for late-phase trials. To demonstrate control of type I error in Bayesian adaptive designs, adjustments to the stopping boundaries are usually required for designs that allow for early stopping for efficacy as the number of analyses increase. If the designs only allow for early stopping for futility then adjustments to the stopping boundaries are not needed to control type I error. If one instead uses a strict Bayesian approach, which is currently more accepted in the design and analysis of exploratory trials, then type I errors could be ignored and the designs could instead focus on the posterior probabilities of treatment effects of clinically-relevant values.

Dataset Information

Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Publications

Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets