Maximizing Return on Socioeconomic Investment in Phase II Proof-of-Concept Trials

Abstract

Phase II proof-of-concept (POC) trials play a key role in oncology drug development, determining which therapeutic hypotheses will undergo definitive phase III testing according to predefined Go-No Go (GNG) criteria. The number of possible POC hypotheses likely far exceeds available public or private resources. We propose a design strategy for maximizing return on socioeconomic investment in phase II trials that obtains the greatest knowledge with the minimum patient exposure. We compare efficiency using the benefit-cost ratio, defined to be the risk-adjusted number of truly active drugs correctly identified for phase III development divided by the risk-adjusted total sample size in phase II and III development, for different POC trial sizes, powering schemes, and associated GNG criteria. It is most cost-effective to conduct small POC trials and set the corresponding GNG bars high, so that more POC trials can be conducted under socioeconomic constraints. If δ is the minimum treatment effect size of clinical interest in phase II, the study design with the highest benefit-cost ratio has approximately 5% type I error rate and approximately 20% type II error rate (80% power) for detecting an effect size of approximately 1.5δ. A Go decision to phase III is made when the observed effect size is close to δ. With the phenomenal expansion of our knowledge in molecular biology leading to an unprecedented number of new oncology drug targets, conducting more small POC trials and setting high GNG bars maximize the return on socioeconomic investment in phase II POC trials.