A Critical Assessment of Approaches to Improving the Efficiency of Cancer Clinical Trials

  • R. Simon
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 111)

Abstract

There are many reasons for focusing attention on the efficiency of clinical trials. First, improving the efficiency of clinical trials may expedite the finding of improved treatments. Developing an effective treatment may be a multistep process involving failures and partial successes along the way. Improving the efficiency of each component clinical trial expedites the entire process. The proliferation of new treatments derived from an improved understanding of tumor biology provides an additional inducement to improve the efficiency by which we screen and evaluate treatments. There are also often strong ethical motivations for conducting each clinical trial as efficiently as possible. If one treatment is more effective than the other, then certainly one wishes to expose as few patients as possible to the inferior treatment. If the treatments are of equivalent antitumor efficacy but the new experimental therapy is more toxic, as is often the case, then one would like to discard the new treatment as soon as possible. In addition to the opportunity cost and the ethical cost, there is also a monetary cost providing an incentive to improving efficiency.

Keywords

Toxicity Tate Room 4B06 Tocol Ethi 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Byar DP, Piantadosi S (1985) Factorial designs for randomized clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 10: 1055–1062Google Scholar
  2. Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL, Stablein DM (1983) Regression methods in the analysis of survival data in cancer combination chemotherapy. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Crowley J (1985) Discussion. Cancer Treat Rep 10: 1079–1080Google Scholar
  4. Ellenberg SS, Eisenberger MA (1985) An efficient design for phase-Ill studies of combination chemotherapies. Cancer Treat Rep 10: 1147–1152Google Scholar
  5. Jennison C, Turnbull BW (1984) Repeated confidence intervals for group sequential clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 5: 33–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lan KKG, Simon R, Halperin M (1982) Stochastically curtailed tests in long-term clinical trials. Commun Stat Sequential Anal 1: 207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. O’Brien PC, Fleming TR (1979) A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 35:549–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peto R (1978) Clinical trial methodology. Biomedicine (Paris) 28: 24–36Google Scholar
  9. Simon R (1984) The importance of prognostic factors in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 68:185–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Simon R (1986) Confidence intervals for reporting clinical trial results. Ann Intern Med 105: 4429–4435Google Scholar
  11. Simon R, Wittes RE (1985) Methodologic guidelines for clinical trial reports. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS (1985) Randomized phase-II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1375–1381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Blackburn PR (1986) Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power? Controlled Clin Trials 7: 8–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thall PF, Simon R, Ellenberg SS (1988 a) Optimal two-stage designs for clinical trials with binary response. Stat Med (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Thall PF, Simon R, Ellenberg SS (1988 b) A two-stage design for choosing among several experimental treatments and a control in phase-Ill clinical trials.Google Scholar
  16. Thall PF, Simon R, Ellenberg SS (1988 c) Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials. Biometrika (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R (1984) Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med 3: 409–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whitehead J (1985) Designing phase-II studies in the context of a programme of clinical research. Biometrics 41: 373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Whitehead J (1986) Sample sizes for phase-II and phase-Ill clinical trials: an integrated approach. Stat Med 5: 459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Simon
    • 1
  1. 1.National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations