Bayesian borrowing for basket trials with longitudinal outcomes.

Basket trials are a novel clinical trial design in which a single intervention is investigated in multiple patient subgroups, or "baskets." They offer the opportunity to share information between subgroups, potentially increasing power to detect treatment effects. Basket trials offer several advantages over running a series of separate trials, including reduced sample sizes, increased efficiency, and reduced costs. Primarily, basket trials have been undertaken in Phase II oncology settings, but could be a promising design in other areas where a shared underlying biological mechanism drives different diseases. One such area is chronic aging-related diseases. However, trials in this area frequently have longitudinal outcomes, and therefore suitable methods are needed to share information in this setting. In this paper, we extend three Bayesian borrowing methods for a basket design with continuous longitudinal endpoints. We demonstrate our methods on a real-world dataset and in a simulation study where the aim is to detect positive basketwise treatment effects. Methods are compared with standalone analysis of each basket without borrowing. Our results confirm that methods that share information can improve power to detect positive treatment effects and increase precision over independent analysis in many scenarios. In highly heterogeneous scenarios, there is a trade-off between increased power and increased risk of type I errors. Our proposed methods for basket trials with continuous longitudinal outcomes aim to facilitate their applicability in the area of aging related diseases. Choice of method should be made based on trial priorities and the expected basketwise distribution of treatment effects.

Estimand framework: Are we asking the right questions? A case study in the solid tumor setting.

The estimand framework requires a precise definition of the clinical question of interest (the estimand) as different ways of accounting for "intercurrent" events post randomization may result in different scientific questions. The initiation of subsequent therapy is common in oncology clinical trials and is considered an intercurrent event if the start of such therapy occurs prior to a recurrence or progression event. Three possible ways to account for this intercurrent event in the analysis are to censor at initiation, consider recurrence or progression events (including death) that occur before and after the initiation of subsequent therapy, or consider the start of subsequent therapy as an event in and of itself. The new estimand framework clarifies that these analyses address different questions ("does the drug delay recurrence if no patient had received subsequent therapy?" vs "does the drug delay recurrence with or without subsequent therapy?" vs "does the drug delay recurrence or start of subsequent therapy?"). The framework facilitates discussions during clinical trial planning and design to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. This article is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Council for Harmonisation E9 addendum concepts to applications. Data from previously reported randomized phase 3 studies in the renal cell carcinoma setting are used to consider common intercurrent events in solid tumor studies, and to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Trial Objective and Analysis of Oncology Clinical Trials-Application of the Estimand Framework.

Abstract-Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on patient journeys in oncology represents a new risk to interpretation of trial results and its broad applicability for future clinical practice. We identify key intercurrent events (ICEs) that may occur due to COVID-19 in oncology clinical trials with a focus on time-to-event endpoints and discuss considerations pertaining to the other estimand attributes introduced in the ICH E9 addendum. We propose strategies to handle COVID-19 related ICEs, depending on their relationship with malignancy and treatment and the interpretability of data after them. We argue that the clinical trial objective from a world without COVID-19 pandemic remains valid. The estimand framework provides a common language to discuss the impact of COVID-19 in a structured and transparent manner. This demonstrates that the applicability of the framework may even go beyond what it was initially intended for.