Dataset Information

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment.

Methods

Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms.

Results

The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick.

Conclusions

We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.

SUBMITTER: Mossop H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8770479 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

Mossop Helen H Grayling Michael J MJ Gallagher Ferdia A FA Welsh Sarah J SJ Stewart Grant D GD Wason James M S JMS

British journal of cancer 20211108 2

<h4>Background</h4>Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage ...[more]

PMID: 34750494

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBayesian adaptive designs can be more efficient than traditional methods for multi-arm randomised controlled trials. The aim of this work was to demonstrate how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for multi-arm phase III clinical trials and assess potential benefits that these designs offer.MethodsWe constructed several alternative Bayesian adaptive designs for the Collaborative Ankle Support Trial (CAST), which was a randomised controlled trial that compared four treatments for severe ankle sprain. These designs incorporated response adaptive randomisation (RAR), arm dropping, and early stopping for efficacy or futility. We studied the operating characteristics of the Bayesian designs via simulation. We then virtually re-executed the trial by implementing the Bayesian adaptive designs using patient data sampled from the CAST study to demonstrate the practical applicability of the designs.ResultsWe constructed five Bayesian adaptive designs, each of which had high power and recruited fewer patients on average than the original designs target sample size. The virtual executions showed that most of the Bayesian designs would have led to trials that declared superiority of one of the interventions over the control. Bayesian adaptive designs with RAR or arm dropping were more likely to allocate patients to better performing arms at each interim analysis. Similar estimates and conclusions were obtained from the Bayesian adaptive designs as from the original trial.ConclusionsUsing CAST as an example, this case study shows how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for phase III multi-arm trials using clinically relevant decision criteria. These designs demonstrated that they can potentially generate earlier results and allocate more patients to better performing arms. We recommend the wider use of Bayesian adaptive approaches in phase III clinical trials.Trial registrationCAST study registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN37807450. Retrospectively registered on 25 April 2003.

Project description:BackgroundMulti-Arm Multi-Stage designs aim at comparing several new treatments to a common reference, in order to select or drop any treatment arm to move forward when such evidence already exists based on interim analyses. We redesigned a Bayesian adaptive design initially proposed for dose-finding, focusing our interest in the comparison of multiple experimental drugs to a control on a binary criterion measure.MethodsWe redesigned a phase II clinical trial that randomly allocates patients across three (one control and two experimental) treatment arms to assess dropping decision rules. We were interested in dropping any arm due to futility, either based on historical control rate (first rule) or comparison across arms (second rule), and in stopping experimental arm due to its ability to reach a sufficient response rate (third rule), using the difference of response probabilities in Bayes binomial trials between the treated and control as a measure of treatment benefit. Simulations were then conducted to investigate the decision operating characteristics under a variety of plausible scenarios, as a function of the decision thresholds.ResultsOur findings suggest that one experimental treatment was less efficient than the control and could have been dropped from the trial based on a sample of approximately 20 instead of 40 patients. In the simulation study, stopping decisions were reached sooner for the first rule than for the second rule, with close mean estimates of response rates and small bias. According to the decision threshold, the mean sample size to detect the required 0.15 absolute benefit ranged from 63 to 70 (rule 3) with false negative rates of less than 2 % (rule 1) up to 6 % (rule 2). In contrast, detecting a 0.15 inferiority in response rates required a sample size ranging on average from 23 to 35 (rules 1 and 2, respectively) with a false positive rate ranging from 3.6 to 0.6 % (rule 3).ConclusionAdaptive trial design is a good way to improve clinical trials. It allows removing ineffective drugs and reducing the trial sample size, while maintaining unbiased estimates. Decision thresholds can be set according to predefined fixed error decision rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342692 .

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.

Dataset Information

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets