Statistical Considerations in the Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Antiemetic Clinical Trials

An Emerging Consensus
  • Gary R. Morrow
  • Enzo Ballatori
  • Susan Groshen
  • Ian Olver
Conference paper

Abstract

Various aspects of trial design and planning for clinical testing of antiemetic therapies administered to cancer patients are considered. It is generally felt that a randomized double-blind parallel-arm design is the best. Ways of achieving adequate power of such studies are discussed briefly, as is the need for previous identification of primary and secondary end points. Finally, summary recommendations are given.

Keywords

Oncol Assure Stratification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aapro M (1993) Methodological issues in antiemetic studies. Invest New Drugs 11: 243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armitage PW, McPherson K, Rowe BC (1969) Repeated significance tests on accumulating data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 132: 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballatori E, Roila F, Del Favero A (1996) Methodology of antiemetic trials. In: Tonato M (ed) Antiemetics in the supportive care in cancer. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 35–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechhofer RE, Santner TJ, Goldsman DM (1995) Design and analysis of experiments for statistical selection, screening, and multiple comparisons. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergmann JF (1995) Méthodologie de l’évaluation des antiémétiques. Bull Cancer 82: 1062–1066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackwelder WC (1982) Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 3: 345–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonneterre J, Hecquet B, Adenis A, Fournier C, Pion JM, Demaille A (1991) How do patients and physicians decide which antiemetic is the best in a cross-over study? Proc ASCO 10: 323Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byar DP, Piantadosi S (1985) Factorial designs for randomized clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1055–1063PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geller NL (1987) Planned interim analysis and its role in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 5: 1857–1490Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gralla RJ, Clark RA, Kris MG, Tyson LB (1991) Methodology in anti-emetic trials. Eur J Cancer 27 [Suppl 1]: S5 - S8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green SJ, Fleming TR, O’Fallon JR (1987) Policies for study monitoring and interim reporting of results. J Clin Oncol 5: 477–1484Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groshen S (1992) Antiemetic study design: a discussion of Dr. Olver’s paper. Br J Cancer 66 [Suppl XIX]: S35 – S37Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Italian Group for Antiemetic Research (1997) Delayed emesis induced by moderate emetogenic chemotherapy: do we need to treat all patients? Ann Oncol (in press)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB (1991) Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 10: 1595–1605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewis JA, Machin D (1993) Intention to treat–who should use ITT? Br J Cancer 68: 647–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makuch R, Simon R (1978) Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treat Rep 62: 1037–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morrow GR (1992) Methodology and assessment in clinical anti-emetic research: a meta-analysis of outcome parameters. Br J Cancer 66 [Suppl XIX1: S38 - S41Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morrow GR, Roscoe JA (1997) Anticipatory nausea and vomiting: models, mechanisms and management. In: Dicato M (ed) Medical Management of Cancer-Treatment Induced Emesis. Martin Dunitz, London, pp 149–166Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olver IN (1992) Antiemetic study design: desirable objectives, stratifications and analyses. Br J Cancer 66 [Suppl XIX]: S30 - S34Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olver IN (1996) Antiemetic study methodology: recommendations for future studies. Oncology 53 [Suppl 1]: 96–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olver IN, Simon RM, Aisner J (1986) Antiemetic studies: a methodological discussion. Cancer Treat Rep 70: 555–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olver IN, Matthews JP, Bishop JF, Smith RA (1994) The roles of patient and observer assessments in anti-emetic trials. Eur J Cancer [A] 30: 1223–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seipp CA, Chang AE, Shiling DJ, Rosenberg SA (1980) In search of an effective antiemetic: a nursing staff participates in marijuana research. Cancer Nurs 21: 271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zelen M (1987) Early stopping, interim analyses, and monitoring committees: what are the tradeoffs? J Clin Oncol 5: 1314–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Morrow
  • Enzo Ballatori
  • Susan Groshen
  • Ian Olver

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations