Dataset Information

Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Biomarker Strategy Design has been proposed for trials assessing the value of a biomarker in guiding treatment in oncology. In such trials, patients are randomised to either receive the standard chemotherapy treatment or a biomarker-directed treatment arm, in which biomarker status is used to guide treatment.

Methods

Motivated by a current trial, we consider an adaptive design in which two biomarkers are assessed. The trial is conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients in the biomarker-guided arm are assessed using a standard and an alternative cheaper biomarker, with the standard biomarker guiding treatment. An analysis comparing biomarker results is then used to choose the biomarker to use for the remainder of the trial. The new biomarker is used if the results for the two biomarkers are sufficiently similar.

Results

We show that in practical situations the first-stage results can be used to adapt the trial without type I error rate inflation. We also show that there can be considerable cost gains with only a small loss in power in the case where the alternative biomarker is highly concordant with the standard one.

Conclusions

Adaptive designs have an important role in reducing the cost and increasing the clinical utility of trials evaluating biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

SUBMITTER: Wason J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3992506 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

Wason J J Marshall A A Dunn J J Stein R C RC Stallard N N

British journal of cancer 20140325 8

<h4>Background</h4>The Biomarker Strategy Design has been proposed for trials assessing the value of a biomarker in guiding treatment in oncology. In such trials, patients are randomised to either receive the standard chemotherapy treatment or a biomarker-directed treatment arm, in which biomarker status is used to guide treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Motivated by a current trial, we consider an adaptive design in which two biomarkers are assessed. The trial is conducted in two stages. In the first s ...[more]

PMID: 24667651

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEfforts to develop biomarker-targeted anti-cancer therapies have progressed rapidly in recent years. With efforts to expedite regulatory reviews of promising therapies, several targeted cancer therapies have been granted accelerated approval on the basis of evidence acquired in single-arm phase II clinical trials. And yet, in the absence of randomization, patient prognosis for progression-free survival and overall survival may not have been studied under standard of care chemotherapies for emerging biomarker subpopulations prior to the submission of an accelerated approval application. Historical control rates used to design and evaluate emerging targeted therapies often arise as population averages, lacking specificity to the targeted genetic or immunophenotypic profile. Thus, historical trial results are inherently limited for inferring the potential "comparative efficacy" of novel targeted therapies. Consequently, randomization may be unavoidable in this setting. Innovations in design methodology are needed, however, to enable efficient implementation of randomized trials for agents that target biomarker subpopulations.MethodsThis article proposes three randomized designs for early phase biomarker-guided oncology clinical trials. Each design utilizes the optimal efficiency predictive probability method to monitor multiple biomarker subpopulations for futility. Only designs with type I error between 0.05 and 0.1 and power of at least 0.8 were considered when selecting an optimal efficiency design from among the candidate designs formed by different combinations of posterior and predictive threshold. A simulation study motivated by the results reported in a recent clinical trial studying atezolizumab treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is used to evaluate the operating characteristics of the various designs.ResultsOut of a maximum of 300 total patients, we find that the enrichment design has an average total sample size under the null of 101.0 and a total average sample size under the alternative of 218.0, as compared to 144.8 and 213.8 under the null and alternative, respectively, for the stratified control arm design. The pooled control arm design enrolled a total of 113.2 patients under the null and 159.6 under the alternative, out of a maximum of 200. These average sample sizes that are 23-48% smaller under the alternative and 47-64% smaller under the null, as compared to the realized sample size of 310 patients in the phase II study of atezolizumab.DiscussionOur findings suggest that potentially smaller phase II trials to those used in practice can be designed using randomization and futility stopping to efficiently obtain more information about both the treatment and control groups prior to phase III study.

Project description:In the era of precision medicine, drugs are increasingly developed to target subgroups of patients with certain biomarkers. In large all-comer trials using a biomarker stratified design, the cost of treating and following patients for clinical outcomes may be prohibitive. With a fixed number of randomized patients, the efficiency of testing certain treatments parameters, including the treatment effect among biomarker-positive patients and the interaction between treatment and biomarker, can be improved by increasing the proportion of biomarker positives on study, especially when the prevalence rate of biomarker positives is low in the underlying patient population. When the cost of assessing the true biomarker is prohibitive, one can further improve the study efficiency by oversampling biomarker positives with a cheaper auxiliary variable or a surrogate biomarker that correlates with the true biomarker. To improve efficiency and reduce cost, we can adopt an enrichment strategy for both scenarios by concentrating on testing and treating patient subgroups that contain more information about specific treatment parameters of primary interest to the investigators. In the first scenario, an enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the cohort of randomized patients by directly oversampling the relevant patients with the true biomarker, while in the second scenario, an auxiliary-variable-enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the randomized cohort based on an inexpensive auxiliary variable, thereby avoiding testing the true biomarker on all screened patients and reducing treatment waiting time. For both designs, we discuss how to choose the optimal enrichment proportion when testing a single hypothesis or two hypotheses simultaneously. At a requisite power, we compare the two new designs with the BSD design in terms of the number of randomized patients and the cost of trial under scenarios mimicking real biomarker stratified trials. The new designs are illustrated with hypothetical examples for designing biomarker-driven cancer trials.

Dataset Information

Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets