Abstract
In search for better treatment, biomedical researchers have defined an increasing number of new anticancer compounds attacking the tumour disease with drugs targeted to specific molecular structure and acting very differently from standard cytotoxic drugs. This has put high pressure on early clinical drug testing since drugs may need to be tested in parallel when only a limited number of patients—e.g., in rare diseases—or limited funding for a single compound is available. Furthermore, at planning stage, basic information to define an adequate design may be rudimentary. Therefore, flexibility in design and conduct of clinical studies has become one of the methodological challenges in the search for better anticancer treatments. Using the example of a comparative phase II study in patients with rare non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma and high uncertainty about effective treatment options, three flexible design options are explored for two-stage two-armed survival trials. Whereas the two considered classical group sequential approaches integrate early stopping for futility in two-sided hypothesis tests, the presented adaptive group sequential design enlarges these methods by sample size recalculation after the interim analysis if the study has not been stopped for futility. Simulation studies compare the characteristics of the different design approaches.
This work has been done in memoriam of Andrei Yakovlev (1944–2008) whom the second author and the Department of Biostatistics of the German Cancer Research Center is obliged for a more than 15 years collaboration and friendship, remembering with great thanks his always vivid and enthusiastic stimulations and contributions giving guidance to good statistical science and practice.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bauer, P., Bretz, F., Dragalin, V., König, F., & Wassmer, G. (2016). Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Statistics in Medicine, 35, 325–347.
Bauer, P., & Köhne, K. (1994). Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics, 50, 1029–1041.
Bauer, P., & Posch, M. (2004). Letter to the editor. Modification of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections, by H. Müller, H.-H. Schäfer, Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:3741–3751. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 1333–1335.
Brannath, W., Posch, M., & Bauer, P. (2002). Recursive combination tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 236–244.
Chang, M. N., Hwang, I. K., & Shih, W. J. (1998). Group sequential designs using both type I and type II error probability spending functions. Communications in Statistics, Theory and Methods, A27(6), 1323–1339.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B34, 187–220.
Cox, D. R. (1975). Partial likelihood. Biometrika, 62(2), 269–276.
Denne, J. S. (2001). Sample size recalculation using conditional power. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 2645–2660.
Desseaux, K., & Porcher, R. (2007). Flexible two-stage design with sample size reassessment for survival trials. Statistics in Medicine, 26(27), 5002–5013.
FDA. (2010). Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics – Draft guidance. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm121568.htm
FDA. (2016). Adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies – Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm446729.pdf
Gu, M., & Ying, Z. (1995). Group sequential methods for survival data using partial likelihood score processes with covariate adjustment. Statistica Sinica, 5, 793–804.
Hwang, I. K., Shih, W. J., & De Cani, J. S. (1990). Group sequential designs using a family of type I error probability spending functions. Statistics in Medicine, 9, 1439–1445.
Irle, S., & Schäfer, H. (2012). Interim design modifications in time-to-event studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107, 341–348.
Jahn-Eimermacher, A., & Ingel, K. (2009). Adaptive trial design: A general methodology for censored time to event data. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 30, 171–177.
Jenkins, M., Stone, A., & Jennison, C. (2011). An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(4), 347–356.
Jennison, C., & Turnbull, B. W. (2000). Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Lachin, J. M., & Foulkes, M. A. (1986). Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for nonuniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, noncompliance and stratification. Biometrics, 42, 507–519.
Lan, K. K. G., & DeMets, D. L. (1983). Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika, 70(3), 659–663.
Lan, K. K. G., & DeMets, D. L. (1989). Group sequential procedures: Calendar versus information time. Statistics in Medicine, 8, 1191–1198.
Lehmacher, W., & Wassmer, G. (1999). Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics, 55, 1286–1290.
Magirr, D., Jaki, T., Koenig, F., & Posch, M. (2014). Adaptive survival trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1569
Mehta, C. R., & Pocock, S. J. (2011). Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: A practical guide with examples. Statistics in Medicine, 30(28), 3267–3284.
Müller, H. H., & Schäfer, H. (2004). A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 2497–2508.
Project team, R. The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org
Rubinstein, L. V., Gail, M. H., & Santner, T. J. (1981). Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 34, 469–479.
Rudser, K. D., & Emerson, S. S. (2008). Implementing type I and type II error spending for two-sided group sequential designs. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29, 351–358.
Schäfer, H., & Müller, H. H. (2001). Modification of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 3741–3751.
Schmidinger, M., & Zielinski, C. C. (2009). Novel agents for renal cell carcinoma require novel selection paradigms to optimise first-line therapy. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 35, 289–296.
Schmidt, R., Faldum, A., & Kwiecien, R. (2018). Adaptive designs of the one-sample logrank test. Biometrics, 74, 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12776
Schrader, A. J., Olbert, P. J., Hegele, A., Varga, Z., & Hofmann, R. (2008). Metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: current therapeutic options. BJU International, 101, 1343–1345.
Tsiatis, A. (1981). A large sample study of Cox’s regression model. The Annals of Statistics, 9(1), 93–108.
Tsiatis, A., Rosner, G. L., & Tritchler, D. L. (1985). Group sequential tests with censored survival data adjusting for covariates. Biometrika, 72(2), 365–373.
Tymofyeyev, Y. (2014). A review of available software and capabilities for adaptive designs. In W. He, J. Pinheiro, & O. M. Kuznetsova (Eds.), Practical considerations for adaptive trial design and implementation (pp. 139–155). New York: Springer.
Wassmer, G. (2006). Planning and analyzing adaptive group sequential survival trials. Biometrical Journal, 48, 714–729.
Wunder, C., Kopp-Schneider, A., & Edler, L. (2012). An adaptive group sequential phase II design to compare treatments for survival endpoints in rare patient entities. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 22(2), 294–311.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kunz, C., Edler, L. (2020). On the Application of Flexible Designs When Searching for the Better of Two Anticancer Treatments. In: Almudevar, A., Oakes, D., Hall, J. (eds) Statistical Modeling for Biological Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34675-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34675-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34674-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34675-1
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)