Bayesian sequential monitoring strategies for trials of digestive cancer therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutics in oncology have presented challenges to existing paradigms and trial designs in all phases of drug development. As a motivating example, we considered an ongoing phase II trial planned to evaluate the combination of a MET inhibitor and an anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy to treat advanced oesogastric carcinoma. The objective of the paper was to exemplify the planning of an adaptive phase II trial with novel anti-cancer agents, including prolonged observation windows and joint sequential evaluation of efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: We considered various candidate designs and computed decision rules assuming correlations between efficacy and toxicity. Simulations were conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of all designs. RESULTS: Design approaches allowing continuous accrual, such as the time-to-event Bayesian Optimal Phase II design (TOP), showed good operating characteristics while ensuring a reduced trial duration. All designs were sensitive to the specification of the correlation between efficacy and toxicity during planning, but TOP can take that correlation into account more easily. CONCLUSIONS: While specifying design working hypotheses requires caution, Bayesian approaches such as the TOP design had desirable operating characteristics and allowed incorporating concomittant information, such as toxicity data from concomitant observations in another relevant patient population (e.g., defined by mutational status).

A seamless phase II/III design with dose optimization for oncology drug development.

The US FDA's Project Optimus initiative that emphasizes dose optimization prior to marketing approval represents a pivotal shift in oncology drug development. It has a ripple effect for rethinking what changes may be made to conventional pivotal trial designs to incorporate a dose optimization component. Aligned with this initiative, we propose a novel seamless phase II/III design with dose optimization (SDDO framework). The proposed design starts with dose optimization in a randomized setting, leading to an interim analysis focused on optimal dose selection, trial continuation decisions, and sample size re-estimation (SSR). Based on the decision at interim analysis, patient enrollment continues for both the selected dose arm and control arm, and the significance of treatment effects will be determined at final analysis. The SDDO framework offers increased flexibility and cost-efficiency through sample size adjustment, while stringently controlling the Type I error. This proposed design also facilitates both accelerated approval (AA) and regular approval in a "one-trial" approach. Extensive simulation studies confirm that our design reliably identifies the optimal dosage and makes preferable decisions with a reduced sample size while retaining statistical power.

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.

BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated ß = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated ß = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSION: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology.

In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.

Prevalence and Impact of Bypassing or Overriding Phase 2 Trials in Neurologic Drug Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pivotal trials for neurologic drugs in clinical development are often initiated without a phase 2 trial ("bypass") or despite a negative phase 2 efficacy result ("override"). Such practices may degrade the risk/benefit ratio of phase 3 trials. The aim of this study is to estimate the proportion of phase 3 trials for 10 neurologic diseases started without a positive phase 2 trial, to identify factors associated with this practice, and to investigate any association with unfavorable phase 3 trial outcomes. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 trials completed during 2011-2021, with at least 1 research site in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or Australia, and investigating drugs or biologics for treatment of 10 neurologic conditions. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of phase 2 bypass/override by searching for preceding phase 2 trials. We used Fisher exact tests to determine whether phase 3 trial characteristics and trial results were associated with phase 2 bypass/override. RESULTS: Of the 1,188 phase 3 trials captured in our search, 113 met eligibility for inclusion. Of these, 46% were not preceded by a phase 2 trial that was positive on an efficacy endpoint (31% bypassed and 15% overrode phase 2 trial). Phase 2 bypass/override was not associated with industry funding (77% vs 89%, 95% CI 0.75-7.55, p = 0.13) or testing already approved interventions (23% vs 15%, 95% CI 0.60-5.14, p = 0.33). Overall, phase 3 trials based on phase 2 bypassed/override were statistically significantly less likely to be positive on their primary outcome (31% vs 57%, respectively, 95% CI 1.21-6.92, p = 0.01). This effect disappeared when indications characterized by nearly universal positive or negative results were excluded. Trials that bypassed/overrode phase 2 trials were not statistically significantly more likely to be terminated early because of safety or futility (29% vs 15%, respectively, 95% CI 0.15-1.18, p = 0.11) and did not show increased risk of adverse events in experimental arms (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79, vs RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.69, respectively, p = 0.65). DISCUSSION: Almost half of the neurologic disease phase 3 trials were initiated without the support of a positive phase 2 trial. Although our analysis does not establish harm with bypass/override, its prevalence and the scientific rationale for phase 2 trial testing favor development of criteria defining when phase 2 bypass/override is justified.

Improved mortality analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for emergency medical diseases using Bayesian time-to-event models with active comparators.

Emergency medical diseases (EMDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. A time-to-death analysis is needed to accurately identify the risks and describe the pattern of an EMD because the mortality rate can peak early and then decline. Dose-ranging Phase II clinical trials are essential for developing new therapies for EMDs. However, most dose-finding trials do not analyze mortality as a time-to-event endpoint. We propose three Bayesian dose-response time-to-event models for a secondary mortality analysis of a clinical trial: a two-group (active treatment vs control) model, a three-parameter sigmoid EMAX model, and a hierarchical EMAX model. The study also incorporates one specific active treatment as an active comparator in constructing three new models. We evaluated the performance of these six models and a very popular independent model using simulated data motivated by a randomized Phase II clinical trial focused on identifying the most effective hyperbaric oxygen dose to achieve favorable functional outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. The results show that the three-group, EMAX, and EMAX model with an active comparator produce the smallest averaged mean squared errors and smallest mean absolute biases. We provide a new approach for time-to-event analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for EMDs. The EMAX model with an active comparator can provide valuable insights into the mortality analysis of new EMDs or other conditions that have changing risks over time. The restricted mean survival time, a function of the model's hazards, is recommended for displaying treatment effects for EMD research.

REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors.

The rise of cutting-edge precision cancer treatments has led to a growing significance of the optimal biological dose (OBD) in modern oncology trials. These trials now prioritize the consideration of both toxicity and efficacy simultaneously when determining the most desirable dosage for treatment. Traditional approaches in early-phase oncology trials have conventionally relied on the assumption of a monotone relationship between treatment efficacy and dosage. However, this assumption may not hold valid for novel oncology therapies. In reality, the dose-efficacy curve of such treatments may reach a plateau at a specific dose, posing challenges for conventional methods in accurately identifying the OBD. Furthermore, achieving reliable identification of the OBD is typically not possible based on a single small-sample trial. With data from multiple phase I and phase I/II trials, we propose a novel Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis (REDOMA) approach to identify the OBD by synthesizing toxicity and efficacy data from each trial. The REDOMA method can address trials with heterogeneous characteristics. We adopt a curve-free approach based on a Gamma process prior to model the average dose-toxicity relationship. In addition, we utilize a Bayesian model selection framework that uses the spike-and-slab prior as an automatic variable selection technique to eliminate monotonic constraints on the dose-efficacy curve. The good performance of the REDOMA method is confirmed by extensive simulation studies.

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I/II clinical trials.

In recent years, both model-based and model-assisted designs have emerged to efficiently determine the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II trials for immunotherapy and targeted cellular agents. Model-based designs necessitate repeated model fitting and computationally intensive posterior sampling for each dose-assignment decision, limiting their practical application in real trials. On the other hand, model-assisted designs employ simple statistical models and facilitate the precalculation of a decision table for use throughout the trial, eliminating the need for repeated model fitting. Due to their simplicity and transparency, model-assisted designs are often preferred in phase I/II trials. In this paper, we systematically evaluate and compare the operating characteristics of several recent model-assisted phase I/II designs, including TEPI, PRINTE, Joint i3+3, BOIN-ET, STEIN, uTPI, and BOIN12, in addition to the well-known model-based EffTox design, using comprehensive numerical simulations. To ensure an unbiased comparison, we generated 10,000 dosing scenarios using a random scenario generation algorithm for each predetermined OBD location. We thoroughly assess various performance metrics, such as the selection percentages, average patient allocation to OBD, and overdose percentages across the eight designs. Based on these assessments, we offer design recommendations tailored to different objectives, sample sizes, and starting dose locations.

Design and sample size determination for multiple-dose randomized phase II trials for dose optimization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched Project Optimus to shift dose selection from the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the dose that produces the optimal risk-benefit tradeoff. One approach highlighted in the FDA's guidance involves conducting a randomized phase II trial following the completion of a phase I trial, where multiple doses (typically including the MTD and one or two doses lower than the MTD) are compared to identify the optimal dose that maximizes the benefit-risk tradeoff. This article focuses on the design of such a multiple-dose randomized trial, specifically the determination of the sample size. We generalized the standard definitions of type I error and power to accommodate the unique characteristics of dose optimization and derived a decision rule along with an algorithm to determine the optimal sample size. The resulting design is referred to as MERIT (Multiple-dosE RandomIzed Trial design for dose optimization based on toxicity and efficacy). Simulation studies demonstrate that MERIT has desirable operating characteristics, and a sample size between 20 and 40 per dosage arm often offers reasonable power and type I errors to ensure patient safety and benefit. To facilitate the implementation of the MERIT design, we provide software, available at https://www.trialdesign.org.

Confidence intervals for odds ratio from multistage randomized phase II trials.

A multi-stage randomized trial design can significantly improve efficiency by allowing early termination of the trial when the experimental arm exhibits either low or high efficacy compared to the control arm during the study. However, proper inference methods are necessary because the underlying distribution of the target statistic changes due to the multi-stage structure. This article focuses on multi-stage randomized phase II trials with a dichotomous outcome, such as treatment response, and proposes exact conditional confidence intervals for the odds ratio. The usual single-stage confidence intervals are invalid when used in multi-stage trials. To address this issue, we propose a linear ordering of all possible outcomes. This ordering is conditioned on the total number of responders in each stage and utilizes the exact conditional distribution function of the outcomes. This approach enables the estimation of an exact confidence interval accounting for the multi-stage designs.

Statistical considerations in model-based dose finding for binary responses under model uncertainty.

The statistical methodology for model-based dose finding under model uncertainty has attracted increasing attention in recent years. While the underlying principles are simple and easy to understand, developing and implementing an efficient approach for binary responses can be a formidable task in practice. Motivated by the statistical challenges encountered in a phase II dose finding study, we explore several key design and analysis issues related to the hybrid testing-modeling approaches for binary responses. The issues include candidate model selection and specifications, optimal design and efficient sample size allocations, and, notably, the methods for dose-response testing and estimation. Specifically, we consider a class of generalized linear models suited for the candidate set and establish D-optimal designs for these models. Additionally, we propose using permutation-based tests for dose-response testing to avoid asymptotic normality assumptions typically required for contrast-based tests. We perform trial simulations to enhance our understanding of these issues.

rBMA: A robust Bayesian Model Averaging Method for phase II basket trials based on informative mixture priors.

Oncology drug research in the last few decades has been driven by the development of targeted agents. In the era of targeted therapies, basket trials are often used to test the antitumor activity of a novel treatment in multiple indications sharing the same genomic alteration. As patient population are further fragmented into biomarker-defined subgroups in basket trials, novel statistical methods are needed to facilitate cross-indication learning to improve the statistical power in basket trial design. Here we propose a robust Bayesian model averaging (rBMA) technique for the design and analysis of phase II basket trials. We consider the posterior distribution of each indication (basket) as the weighted average of three different models which only differ in their priors (enthusiastic, pessimistic and non-informative). The posterior weights of these models are determined based on the effect of the experimental treatment in all the indications tested. In early phase oncology trials, different binary endpoints might be chosen for different indications (objective response, disease control or PFS at landmark times), which makes it even more challenging to borrow information across indications. Compared to previous approaches, the proposed method has the flexibility to support cross-indication learning in the presence of mixed endpoints. We evaluate and compare the performance of the proposed rBMA approach to competing approaches in simulation studies. R scripts to implement the proposed method are available at https://github.com/xwang317/rBMA.

Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

Statistical and practical considerations in planning and conduct of dose-optimization trials.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus with the aim of shifting the paradigm of dose-finding and selection toward identifying the optimal biological dose that offers the best balance between benefit and risk, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, achieving dose optimization is a challenging task that involves a variety of factors and is considerably more complicated than identifying the maximum tolerated dose, both in terms of design and implementation. This article provides a comprehensive review of various design strategies for dose-optimization trials, including phase 1/2 and 2/3 designs, and highlights their respective advantages and disadvantages. In addition, practical considerations for selecting an appropriate design and planning and executing the trial are discussed. The article also presents freely available software tools that can be utilized for designing and implementing dose-optimization trials. The approaches and their implementation are illustrated through real-world examples.

Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life. PURPOSE: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups. METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PIONEER-Panc: a platform trial for phase II randomized investigations of new and emerging therapies for localized pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Personalized and effective treatments for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continue to remain elusive. Novel clinical trial designs that enable continual and rapid evaluation of novel therapeutics are needed. Here, we describe a platform clinical trial to address this unmet need. METHODS: This is a phase II study using a Bayesian platform design to evaluate multiple experimental arms against a control arm in patients with PDAC. We first separate patients into three clinical stage groups of localized PDAC (resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced disease), and further divide each stage group based on treatment history (treatment naïve or previously treated). The clinical stage and treatment history therefore define 6 different cohorts, and each cohort has one control arm but may have one or more experimental arms running simultaneously. Within each cohort, adaptive randomization rules are applied and patients will be randomized to either an experimental arm or the control arm accordingly. The experimental arm(s) of each cohort are only compared to the applicable cohort specific control arm. Experimental arms may be added independently to one or more cohorts during the study. Multiple correlative studies for tissue, blood, and imaging are also incorporated. DISCUSSION: To date, PDAC has been treated as a single disease, despite knowledge that there is substantial heterogeneity in disease presentation and biology. It is recognized that the current approach of single arm phase II trials and traditional phase III randomized studies are not well-suited for more personalized treatment strategies in PDAC. The PIONEER Panc platform clinical trial is designed to overcome these challenges and help advance our treatment strategies for this deadly disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of MD Anderson Cancer Center, IRB-approved protocol 2020-0075. The PIONEER trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04481204 .

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis: a snapshot of therapeutic agents in clinical development and the optimal design for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-associated cirrhosis have the highest rates of major adverse liver outcomes (MALO) within the fatty liver disease spectrum and therefore have the highest unmet need for effective therapeutic agents. Several drugs are being tested for patients with NASH cirrhosis with different mechanisms of action and endpoints. AREAS COVERED: This article summarizes the available data on the natural history of NASH cirrhosis and the rates of developing MALO. We provide examples of ongoing clinical trials for NASH cirrhosis including the study design and endpoints. We then discuss the FDA-guidance on acceptable endpoints for NASH cirrhosis trials that will lead to approval. EXPERT OPINION: Metabolic and antifibrotic drugs are currently in phase 2b trials for NASH cirrhosis with outcomes ranging from histologic improvement on liver biopsy to the development of varices or MALO. We provide the readers with pragmatic advice on trial design for phase 2B and 3 NASH cirrhosis trials. The data presented in the article justify further development and investigation of therapeutic agents for the treatment of NASH cirrhosis.

The evolution of adjuvant/neoadjuvant trials for resectable localized sarcoma.

Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare tumors arising from mesenchymal tissues. As a heterogeneous group comprising more than 50 types, the development of clinical trials remains challenging. Decision-making for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy is based on the available evidence of contemporary trials and multidisciplinary clinical judgment.

An Overview of Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs.

Clinical trials are studies to test new treatments in humans. Typically, these treatments are evaluated over several phases to assess their safety and efficacy. Phase 1 trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of a new treatment, typically with a small number of patients (eg, 20-80), generally spread across several dose levels. Phase 2 trials are designed to determine whether the new treatment has sufficiently promising efficacy to warrant further investigation in a large-scale randomized phase 3 trial, as well as to further assess safety. These studies usually involve a few hundred patients. This article provides an overview of some of the most commonly used phase 2 designs for clinical trials and emphasizes their critical elements and considerations. Key references to some of the most commonly used phase 2 designs are given to allow the reader to explore in more detail the critical aspects when planning a phase 2 trial. A comparison of 3 potential designs in the context of the NRG-HN002 trial is presented to complement the discussion about phase 2 trials.

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment. METHODS: Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms. RESULTS: The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.