Advertisement

Biomarker Enrichment Design Considerations in Oncology Single Arm Studies

  • Hong TianEmail author
  • Kevin Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 218)

Abstract

Oncology drug development has been increasingly shaped by molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), which often demonstrate differential effectiveness driven by the biomarker expression levels on tumors. Innovative statistical designs have been proposed to tackle this challenge, e.g., Freidlin et al. [3, 4], Jiang et al. [7]. All of these are essentially adaptive confirmatory Phase 3 designs that combine the testing of treatment effectiveness in the overall population with an alternative pathway for a more restrictive efficacy claim in a sensitive subpopulation. We believe that, in cases that there are strong biological rationales to support that a MTA may provide differential benefit in a general patient population; proof-of-concept (POC) is likely intertwined with predictive enrichment. Therefore, it is imperative that early phase POC studies be designed to specifically address biomarker-related questions to improve the efficiency of development. In this paper, we propose three strategies for detecting efficacy signals in single-arm studies that allow claiming statistical significance either in the overall population or in a biomarker enriched subpopulation. None of the three methods requires pre-specification of biomarker thresholds, but still maintains statistical rigor in the presence of multiplicity. The performance of these proposed methods are evaluated with simulation studies.

Keywords

Biomarker thresholds Enrichment design Proof of concept Single arm Binary outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    Alosh, M., Huque, M.F.: A flexible strategy for testing subgroups and overall population. Stat. Med. 28, 3–23 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alosh, M., Huque, M.F.: A consistency-adjusted alpha-adaptive strategy for sequential testing. Stat. Med. 29, 1559–1571 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freidlin, B., Simon, R.: Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating 1519 and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin. Cancer 1520 Res. 11, 7872–7878 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freidlin, B, Jiang, W., Simon, R.: The cross-validated adaptive signature design. Clin. Cancer 1522 Res. 16, 691–698 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products, 25 May 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, P., Wilson, S.: Two guidelines for bootstrap hypothesis testing. Biometrics 47(2), 757–762 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang, W., Freidlin, B., Simon, R.: Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(13), 1036–1043 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lyles, R., Lin, J.: Sensitivity analysis for misclassification in logistic regression via likelihood methods and predictive value weighting. Stat. Med. 29(22), 2297–2309 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song, Y., Chi, G.Y.: A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 26, 3535–3549 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Janssen Research & DevelopmentRaritanUSA

Personalised recommendations