A Bayesian basket trial design accounting for uncertainties of homogeneity and heterogeneity of treatment effect among subpopulations.

Basket trials are a recent and innovative approach in oncological clinical trial design. A basket trial is a type of clinical trial for which eligibility is based on the presence of a specific genomic alteration, irrespective of cancer type. Additionally, basket trials are often used to evaluate the response rate of an investigational therapy across several types of cancer. Recently developed statistical methods for evaluating the response rate in basket trials can be generally categorized into two groups: (a) those that account for the degrees of homogeneity/heterogeneity of response rates among subpopulations, and (b) those using borrowed response rate information across subpopulations to improve the statistical efficiency using Bayesian hierarchical models. In this study, we developed a new basket trial design that accounts for the uncertainties of homogeneity and heterogeneity of response rates among subpopulations using the Bayesian model averaging approach. We demonstrated the utility of the proposed method by comparing our approach against other methods for the two methodological groups using simulated and actual data. On an average, the proposed methods offered an intermediate performance between the BHM-weak and BHM-strong methods. The proposed method would be useful for "signal-finding" basket trials without prior information on the treatment effect of an investigational drug, in part because the proposed method does not require specifications regarding prior distributions of homogeneity response rates among subpopulations.

Optimal decision-making in oncology development programs based on probability of success for phase III utilizing phase II/III data on response and overall survival.

In clinical development, there is a trade-off between investment and level of confidence in the potential of the drug before going into phase III. Reduced investment requires the use of short-term endpoints. On new compounds, only limited information about the relationship between treatment effects of short- and long-term endpoints is usually available. Therefore, decision-making solely based on short-term endpoints does not seem desirable. Our goal is to plan an efficient development program, which uses short- and long-term endpoints data for decision-making. We found that with limited prior information and restrictions on maximum sample size, decision-making after phase II cannot be substantially improved. We follow the concept of a "phase 2+" design where after a go-to-phase-III-decision, further follow-up data from phase II are employed to make interim decisions on phase III. The program will be stopped early when additional phase II and/or available phase III data lead to a low probability of success (PoS). We utilize information from a multi-categorical short-term endpoint (response status) and a long-term endpoint (overall survival (OS)) to determine the PoS in phase III with OS as the primary endpoint. Optimal combinations of decision boundaries and time points are demonstrated in a simulation study. Our results show that the proposed second look using additional follow-up data from phase II/III improves PoS estimates compared to the first look, especially when prior data about the control arm is available. The proposed planning strategy allows a customized compromise between the quality of decision-making and program duration.

Statistical aspects in adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials for gastrointestinal cancer in 2020: focus on time-to-event endpoints.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical-trial design, analysis, and interpretation entails the use of efficient and reliable endpoints. Statistical issues related to endpoints warrant continued attention, as they may have a substantial impact on the conduct of clinical trials and on interpretation of their results. RECENT FINDINGS: We review concepts and discuss recent developments related to the use of time-to-event endpoints in studies on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for colon, pancreatic, and gastric adenocarcinomas. The definition of endpoints has varied to a considerable extent in these settings. Although these variations are relevant in interpreting results from individual trials, they probably have a small impact when considered in aggregate. In terms of surrogacy, most published reports so far have used aggregated data. A few studies based on the preferred method of a metaanalysis of individual-patient data have shown that disease-free survival (DFS) is a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer and in gastric cancer, whereas DFS with a landmark of six months is a surrogate for overall survival in the neoadjuvant therapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, or stomach. SUMMARY: Testing novel agents in gastrointestinal cancer requires continued attention to statistical issues related to endpoints.

A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes.

We propose a novel response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed trials with continuous outcomes that are assumed to be normally distributed. Our proposed rule is non-myopic, and oriented toward a patient benefit objective, yet maintains computational feasibility. We derive our response-adaptive algorithm based on the Gittins index for the multi-armed bandit problem, as a modification of the method first introduced in Villar et al. (Biometrics, 71, pp. 969-978). The resulting procedure can be implemented under the assumption of both known or unknown variance. We illustrate the proposed procedure by simulations in the context of phase II cancer trials. Our results show that, in a multi-armed setting, there are efficiency and patient benefit gains of using a response-adaptive allocation procedure with a continuous endpoint instead of a binary one. These gains persist even if an anticipated low rate of missing data due to deaths, dropouts, or complete responses is imputed online through a procedure first introduced in this paper. Additionally, we discuss how there are response-adaptive designs that outperform the traditional equal randomized design both in terms of efficiency and patient benefit measures in the multi-armed trial context.

TITE-BOIN-ET: Time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose-finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de-escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late-onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named "TITE-BOIN-ET" design, is nonparametric and a model-assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials compared with the model-based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE-BOIN-ET design has advantages compared with the model-based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE-BOIN-ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose-finding trials.

Bayesian design of biosimilars clinical programs involving multiple therapeutic indications.

In this paper, we propose a Bayesian design framework for a biosimilars clinical program that entails conducting concurrent trials in multiple therapeutic indications to establish equivalent efficacy for a proposed biologic compared to a reference biologic in each indication to support approval of the proposed biologic as a biosimilar. Our method facilitates information borrowing across indications through the use of a multivariate normal correlated parameter prior (CPP), which is constructed from easily interpretable hyperparameters that represent direct statements about the equivalence hypotheses to be tested. The CPP accommodates different endpoints and data types across indications (eg, binary and continuous) and can, therefore, be used in a wide context of models without having to modify the data (eg, rescaling) to provide reasonable information-borrowing properties. We illustrate how one can evaluate the design using Bayesian versions of the type I error rate and power with the objective of determining the sample size required for each indication such that the design has high power to demonstrate equivalent efficacy in each indication, reasonably high power to demonstrate equivalent efficacy simultaneously in all indications (ie, globally), and reasonable type I error control from a Bayesian perspective. We illustrate the method with several examples, including designing biosimilars trials for follicular lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis using binary and continuous endpoints, respectively.

Two-stage phase II survival trial design.

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression-free survival or event-free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two-stage single-arm phase II trials with a time-to-event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two-stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two-stage design can be routinely used for single-arm phase II trial designs with a time-to-event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two-stage design for the binary outcome.

Cancer immunotherapy trial design with delayed treatment effect.

A challenge arising in cancer immunotherapy trial design is the presence of a delayed treatment effect wherein the proportional hazard assumption no longer holds true. As a result, a traditional survival trial design based on the standard log-rank test, which ignores the delayed treatment effect, will lead to substantial loss of statistical power. Recently, a piecewise weighted log-rank test is proposed to incorporate the delayed treatment effect into consideration of the trial design. However, because the sample size formula was derived under a sequence of local alternative hypotheses, it results in an underestimated sample size when the hazard ratio is relatively small for a balanced trial design and an inaccurate sample size estimation for an unbalanced design. In this article, we derived a new sample size formula under a fixed alternative hypothesis for the delayed treatment effect model. Simulation results show that the new formula provides accurate sample size estimation for both balanced and unbalanced designs.

Innovative Thinking on Endpoint Selection in Clinical Trials.

In clinical trials, selection of appropriate study endpoints is critical for an accurate and reliable evaluation of safety and effectiveness of a test treatment under investigation. In practice, however, there are usually multiple endpoints available for measurement of disease status and/or therapeutic effect of the test treatment under study. For example, in cancer clinical trials, overall survival, response rate, and/or time to disease progression are usually considered as primary clinical endpoints for evaluation of safety and effectiveness of the test treatment under investigation. Once the study endpoints have been selected, sample size required for achieving a desired power is then determined. It, however, should be noted that different study endpoints may result in different sample sizes. In practice, it is usually not clear which study endpoint can best inform the disease status and measure the treatment effect. Moreover, different study endpoints may not translate one another although they may be highly correlated one another. In this article, we intend to develop an innovative endpoint namely therapeutic index based on a utility function to combine and utilize information collected from all study endpoints. Statistical properties and performances of the proposed therapeutic index are evaluated theoretically. A numerical example concerning a cancer clinical trial is given to illustrate the use of the proposed therapeutic index.

Selection of Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Trends in European Marketing Authorization Practice in Oncological Indications.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the types of endpoints that were the basis for efficacy assessment of medicines used in particular groups of oncological indications. Changes in the endpoints applied in marketing authorization practice were also considered. METHODS: The analysis included marketing authorization applications (MAAs) for medicines used in oncological indications that were first-time approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2009 and 2017, and the extensions of the analyzed medicines. RESULTS: The analysis covered 125 MAAs: first-time approved (62%) and extensions (38%). In the analyzed trials, the endpoints that were reported most frequently included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (in 94.4%, 92.8%, 87.2% of MAAs, respectively). The following trends were observed: decreased significance of OS as a primary endpoint and increased significance of PFS as a primary endpoint (hematological indications). An analysis of MAAs for which the OS results were immature confirms the increased significance of PFS and new efficacy indicators (ie, pathological complete response). CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of EMA's marketing authorization practice proves that the use of surrogate endpoints is becoming increasingly common in evaluating oncological health technologies. EMA's guidelines underline the role played by surrogates in the process of assessing efficacy of new therapies. Results of an analysis demonstrate that protocols of clinical trials define surrogates as primary endpoints more and more often. Furthermore, a positive decision on granting marketing authorization is possible also in situations when only such clinical data are available.

Measuring Survival Benefit in Health Technology Assessment in the Presence of Nonproportional Hazards.

BACKGROUND: Proportional hazards (PH) is an assumption often made by researchers, despite evidence of nonproportionality in a significant proportion of clinical trials. In the presence of non-PH, the interpretation of hazard ratios, medians, and landmark survival as summary measures of treatment effect can become problematic. Several recent studies have recommended restricted mean survival time (RMST) as an alternative metric for survival analysis, particularly where non-PH may apply. OBJECTIVES: To determine the current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to value assessment in the presence of non-PH, and the extent to which RMST is accepted as an alternative measure of treatment benefit. METHODS: Methodological guidelines published by 10 HTA agencies were reviewed to establish recommended approaches for presenting survival benefit from clinical trials. Published HTA reports for 23 oncology agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency since 2014 were reviewed to determine how guidelines are implemented in practice and identify instances where the PH assumption was tested and RMST analyses reported. RESULTS: Testing for non-PH is not widely incorporated into HTA except by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. RMST is used infrequently but has been used in a number of countries, particularly by agencies that focus on cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: HTA agencies vary in their approaches to non-PH. Most do not routinely check the PH assumption. RMST has played a role in assessing clinical benefit within HTA, although not consistently within countries (across drugs) or across countries (for the same drug).

Estimation of Study Time Reduction Using Surrogate End Points Rather Than Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Importance: Surrogate end points in oncology trade the advantage of reducing the time needed to conduct clinical trials for the disadvantage of greater uncertainty regarding the treatment effect on patient-centered end points, such as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Objective: To quantify the amount of time saved through the acceptance of surrogate end points, including response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective study of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology approvals and their drug registration trials based on actual publication analyzed the original and updated clinical trials data that led to FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2017 by using existing publications, conference abstracts, and package inserts from the FDA. Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, and third- or later-line treatment of advanced or metastatic disease), FDA approval type, end point basis for approval (RR, PFS, or OS/quality of life), sample size, accrual rate, and drug RR were extracted by March 23, 2018. All data were analyzed by July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the study duration needed to complete the primary end point analysis used for each drug indication approval. This was estimated from reported enrollment dates, analysis cutoff dates, time to response, median duration of response, median PFS, and median OS. Results: In total, 188 distinct indications among 107 cancer drugs were identified. The RR was more often used for FDA approval in subsequent lines of therapy (17 of 71 drug indications [24%] in first-line therapy vs 34 of 77 drug indications [44%] in second-line therapy vs 19 of 24 drug indications [79%] in third- or later-line therapy, P < .001). Study duration for PFS (median, 31 [range, 10-104] months) was similar to that for OS (median, 33 [range, 12-117] months; P = .31), whereas study duration for RR (median, 25 [range, 11-54] months) was shorter than that for OS (P = .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with using OS, use of PFS as the end point was associated with study durations that were shorter by a mean of 11 months (95% CI, 5-17 months), and the use of RR as the end point was associated with study durations that were shorter by a mean of 19 months (95% CI, 13-25 months). Conclusions and Relevance: From the findings of this study, an estimated 11 months appeared to be needed (ie, approximately 12% longer in the drug development cycle) to assess the OS benefit of a cancer drug. This study's findings suggest that this must be weighed against the downside of increased uncertainty of clinical benefit arising from using surrogate end points.

Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and limited sample size.

The stratified Cox model is commonly used for stratified clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. The estimated log hazard ratio is approximately a weighted average of corresponding stratum-specific Cox model estimates using inverse-variance weights; the latter are optimal only under the (often implausible) assumption of a constant hazard ratio across strata. Focusing on trials with limited sample sizes (50-200 subjects per treatment), we propose an alternative approach in which stratum-specific estimates are obtained using a refined generalized logrank (RGLR) approach and then combined using either sample size or minimum risk weights for overall inference. Our proposal extends the work of Mehrotra et al, to incorporate the RGLR statistic, which outperforms the Cox model in the setting of proportional hazards and small samples. This work also entails development of a remarkably accurate plug-in formula for the variance of RGLR-based estimated log hazard ratios. We demonstrate using simulations that our proposed two-step RGLR analysis delivers notably better results through smaller estimation bias and mean squared error and larger power than the stratified Cox model analysis when there is a treatment-by-stratum interaction, with similar performance when there is no interaction. Additionally, our method controls the type I error rate while the stratified Cox model does not in small samples. We illustrate our method using data from a clinical trial comparing two treatments for colon cancer.

Tests for noninferiority trials with binomial endpoints: A guide to modern and quasi-exact methods for biomedical researchers.

Applied statisticians and pharmaceutical researchers are frequently involved in the design and analysis of clinical trials where at least one of the outcomes is binary. Treatments are judged by the probability of a positive binary response. A typical example is the noninferiority trial, where it is tested whether a new experimental treatment is practically not inferior to an active comparator with a prespecified margin δ. Except for the special case of δ = 0, no exact conditional test is available although approximate conditional methods (also called second-order methods) can be applied. However, in some situations, the approximation can be poor and the logical argument for approximate conditioning is not compelling. The alternative is to consider an unconditional approach. Standard methods like the pooled z-test are already unconditional although approximate. In this article, we review and illustrate unconditional methods with a heavy emphasis on modern methods that can deliver exact, or near exact, results. For noninferiority trials based on either rate difference or rate ratio, our recommendation is to use the so-called E-procedure, based on either the score or likelihood ratio statistic. This test is effectively exact, computationally efficient, and respects monotonicity constraints in practice. We support our assertions with a numerical study, and we illustrate the concepts developed in theory with a clinical example in pulmonary oncology; R code to conduct all these analyses is available from the authors.

Statistical analysis of Goal Attainment Scaling endpoints in randomised trials.

Goal Attainment Scaling is an assessment instrument to evaluate interventions on the basis of individual, patient-specific goals. The attainment of these goals is mapped in a pre-specified way to attainment levels on an ordinal scale, which is common to all goals. This approach is patient-centred and allows one to integrate the outcomes of patients with very heterogeneous symptoms. The latter is of particular importance in clinical trials in rare diseases because it enables larger sample sizes by including a broader patient population. In this paper, we focus on the statistical analysis of Goal Attainment Scaling outcomes for the comparison of two treatments in randomised clinical trials. Building on a general statistical model, we investigate the properties of different hypothesis testing approaches. Additionally, we propose a latent variable approach to generate Goal Attainment Scaling data in a simulation study, to assess the impact of model parameters such as the number of goals per patient and their correlation, the choice of discretisation thresholds and the type of design (parallel group or cross-over). Based on our findings, we give recommendations for the design of clinical trials with a Goal Attainment Scaling endpoint. Furthermore, we discuss an application of Goal Attainment Scaling in a clinical trial in mastocytosis.

Strategies for composite estimands in confirmatory clinical trials: Examples from trials in nasal polyps and steroid reduction.

The draft addendum to the ICH E9 regulatory guideline asks for explicit definition of the treatment effect to be estimated in clinical trials. The draft guideline also introduces the concept of intercurrent events to describe events that occur post-randomisation that may affect efficacy assessment. Composite estimands allow incorporation of intercurrent events in the definition of the endpoint. A common example of an intercurrent event is discontinuation of randomised treatment and use of a composite strategy would assess treatment effect based on a variable that combines the outcome variable of interest with discontinuation of randomised treatment. Use of a composite estimand may avoid the need for imputation which would be required by a treatment policy estimand. The draft guideline gives the example of a binary approach for specifying a composite estimand. When the variable is measured on a non-binary scale, other options are available where the intercurrent event is given an extreme unfavourable value, for example comparison of median values or analysis based on categories of response. This paper reviews approaches to deriving a composite estimand and contrasts the use of this estimand to the treatment policy estimand. The benefits of using each strategy are discussed and examples of the use of the different approaches are given for a clinical trial in nasal polyposis and a steroid reduction trial in severe asthma.

Quantitative decision-making in randomized Phase II studies with a time-to-event endpoint.

One of the most critical decision points in clinical development is Go/No-Go decision-making after a proof-of-concept study. Traditional decision-making relies on a formal hypothesis testing with control of type I and type II error rates, which is limited by assessing the strength of efficacy evidence in a small isolated trial. In this article, we propose a quantitative Bayesian/frequentist decision framework for Go/No-Go criteria and sample size evaluation in Phase II randomized studies with a time-to-event endpoint. By taking the uncertainty of treatment effect into consideration, we propose an integrated quantitative approach for a program when both the Phase II and Phase III trials share a common endpoint while allowing a discount of the observed Phase II data. Our results confirm the argument that an increase in the sample size of a Phase II trial will result in greater increase in the probability of success of a Phase III trial than increasing the Phase III trial sample size by equal amount. We illustrate the steps in quantitative decision-making with a real example of a randomized Phase II study in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Randomised feasibility trial to compare three standard of care chemotherapy regimens for early stage triple-negative breast cancer (REaCT-TNBC trial).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of chemotherapy in the treatment of early stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), no one optimal regimen has been identified. We conducted a pilot trial comparing outcomes for the three most commonly used chemotherapy regimens to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial. METHODS: Using integrated consent, newly diagnosed TNBC patients were randomised to one of three standard regimens: dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel, doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then weekly paclitaxel or 5-FU-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel. Feasibility endpoints included; physician engagement, accrual rates, physician compliance and patient satisfaction with the integrated consent model. Our anticipated pilot trial sample size was 35 randomised patients in one year. RESULTS: Between August 30th, 2016 and January 31st 2017, 2 patients met eligibility and were randomised. A survey of 10 participating oncologists was performed to identify potential strategies to enhance accrual. Most investigators (9/10) believed that the best regimen for TNBC was unknown, and 4/10 felt this was a pressing clinical question. Physicians' responses suggested that poor accrual was due to: a lack of interest in some study arms as oncologists already had a preferred regimen (4/10) and concerns about trial demands in busy clinics (3/10). The pilot feasibility endpoints were not met and the study was closed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial interest in the trial question and multiple investigators agreeing to approach patients, this trial failed to meet feasibility endpoints. The reasons for poor accrual were multiple and require further evaluation if this important patient-centred question is to be answered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02688803.

Flexible alpha allocation strategies for confirmatory adaptive enrichment clinical trials with a prespecified subgroup.

Adaptive enrichment designs have recently received considerable attention as they have the potential to make drug development process for personalized medicine more efficient. Several statistical approaches have been proposed so far in the literature and the operating characteristics of these approaches are extensively investigated using simulation studies. In this paper, we improve on existing adaptive enrichment designs by assigning unequal weights to the significance levels associated with the hypotheses of the overall population and a prespecified subgroup. More specifically, we focus on the standard combination test, a modified combination test, the marginal combination test, and the partial conditional error rate approach and explore the operating characteristics of these approaches by a simulation study. We show that these approaches can lead to power gains, compared to existing approaches, if the weights are chosen carefully.