20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Designing phase II trials in cancer: a systematic review and guidance

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Literature reviews of cancer trials have highlighted the need for better understanding of phase II statistical designs. Understanding the key elements associated with phase II design and knowledge of available statistical designs is necessary to enable appropriate phase II trial design.

          Methods:

          A systematic literature review was performed to identify phase II trial designs applicable to oncology trials. The results of the review were used to create a library of currently available designs, and to develop a structured approach to phase II trial design outlining key points for consideration.

          Results:

          A total of 122 papers describing new or adapted phase II trial designs were obtained. These were categorised into nine levels, reflecting the practicalities of implementation, and form a library of phase II designs. Key design elements were identified by data extraction. Along with detailed description of the key elements and the library of designs, a structured thought process was developed to form a guidance document for choice of phase II oncology trial design.

          Conclusion:

          The guidance offers researchers a structured and systematic approach to identifying phase II trial designs, highlighting key issues to be considered by both clinicians and statisticians and encouraging an interactive approach to more informed trial design.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Economics of new oncology drug development.

          Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Do molecularly targeted agents in oncology have reduced attrition rates?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer.

              The primary objective of phase II cancer clinical trials is to determine whether a new regimen has sufficient activity to warrant further study, with activity generally defined as tumor shrinkage. However, oncology drug development has been limited by high rates of failure (lack of efficacy) in subsequent phase III testing. This high failure rate may reflect the process by which antineoplastic agents are usually evaluated in phase II trials, i.e., via single-arm studies in which the primary efficacy measure is the proportion of patients who achieve a complete or partial response to the treatment. This design may efficiently eliminate truly ineffective therapy but may not reliably indicate whether subsequent phase III testing is warranted. We describe the design of a randomized phase II clinical trial of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib for the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer using change in tumor size, measured on a continuous scale, as the primary outcome variable. For the purpose of determining the sample size of the trial, we made assumptions as to the likely magnitude of treatment effect and the variability in tumor size changes based on data from four previous trials using these agents. The study design includes two different dosage arms and a placebo group with a total sample size of 150 patients and is powered to detect a modest reduction in the mean tumor size burden in the high-dose sorafenib arm compared with a slight increase in the placebo group. Clinical trial designs that treat change in tumor size as a continuous variable rather than categorizing the changes are feasible, and by inclusion of a prospective control group they offer advantages over conventional single-arm trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                12 July 2011
                28 June 2011
                : 105
                : 2
                : 194-199
                Affiliations
                [1 ]simpleClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds , Leeds LS2 9NG, UK
                [2 ]simpleLeeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds and St James's Institute of Oncology, Level 4, Bexley Wing, St James's University Hospital , Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
                [3 ]simpleInternational Drug Development Institute , 30 Avenue Provinciale, 1340 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                [4 ]simpleMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Stephenson House , 158-160 North Gower Street, London NW1 2ND, UK
                Author notes
                Article
                bjc2011235
                10.1038/bjc.2011.235
                3142813
                21712822
                6d78542e-31e0-400a-abd3-50c4218fd129
                Copyright © 2011 Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 22 February 2011
                : 31 May 2011
                : 31 May 2011
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                systematic review,trial design,guidance manual,methodology,phase ii
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                systematic review, trial design, guidance manual, methodology, phase ii

                Comments

                Comment on this article