Abstract

PurposeMany phase II clinical trials evaluate unique experimental drugs/combinations through multi-arm design to expedite the screening process (early termination of ineffective drugs) and to identify the most effective drug (pick the winner) to warrant a phase III trial. Various statistical approaches have been developed for the pick-the-winner design but have been criticized for lack of objective comparison among the drug agents.MethodsWe developed a Bayesian pick-the-winner design by integrating a Bayesian posterior probability with Simon two-stage design in a randomized two-arm clinical trial. The Bayesian posterior probability, as the rule to pick the winner, is defined as probability of the response rate in one arm higher than in the other arm. The posterior probability aims to determine the winner when both arms pass the second stage of the Simon two-stage design.ResultsWhen both arms are competitive (i.e., both passing the second stage), the Bayesian posterior probability performs better to correctly identify the winner compared with the Fisher exact test in the simulation study. In comparison to a standard two-arm randomized design, the Bayesian pick-the-winner design has a higher power to determine a clear winner. In application to two studies, the approach is able to perform statistical comparison of two treatment arms and provides a winner probability (Bayesian posterior probability) to statistically justify the winning arm.ConclusionWe developed an integrated design that utilizes Bayesian posterior probability, Simon two-stage design, and randomization into a unique setting. It gives objective comparisons between the arms to determine the winner.

Highlights

  • The purpose of an early-phase II clinical trial is to determine if a new drug has sufficient anti-tumor activity for further development

  • Arm B will be claimed as the winner if Pr(B > A) > δ

  • Arm B will be claimed as the winner if Pr(B > A) > δ = 80%

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of an early-phase II clinical trial is to determine if a new drug has sufficient anti-tumor activity for further development This is often implemented using Simon two-stage design [1] in a single arm setting. Yao et al and Strauss and Simon used a sequential approach to screen treatments by a series of single-arm [15, 16] or twoarm [14] trials over a time domain. These approaches have some limitations, such as requiring intensive resources and www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget the uncertainty of prior distribution of response rate [13]. The winner decision is not based on formal statistical comparisons but on the highest response rate, raising an issue of a high false-positive rate of this design [17]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.