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.

Flexible seamless 2-in-1 design with sample size adaptation.

The 2-in-1 design is becoming popular in oncology drug development, with the flexibility in using different endpoints at different decision time. Based on the observed interim data, sponsors can choose to seamlessly advance a small phase 2 trial to a full-scale confirmatory phase 3 trial with a pre-determined maximum sample size or remain in a phase 2 trial. While this approach may increase efficiency in drug development, it is rigid and requires a pre-specified fixed sample size. In this paper, we propose a flexible 2-in-1 design with sample size adaptation, while retaining the advantage of allowing an intermediate endpoint for interim decision-making. The proposed design reflects the needs of the recent FDA's Project FrontRunner initiative, which encourages the use of an earlier surrogate endpoint to potentially support accelerated approval with conversion to standard approval with long-term endpoints from the same randomized study. Additionally, we identify the interim decision cut-off to allow a conventional test procedure at the final analysis. Extensive simulation studies showed that the proposed design requires much a smaller sample size and shorter timeline than the simple 2-in-1 design, while achieving similar power. We present a case study in multiple myeloma to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed design.

Adjusting for treatment selection in phase II/III clinical trials with time to event data.

Phase II/III clinical trials are efficient two-stage designs that test multiple experimental treatments. In stage 1, patients are allocated to the control and all experimental treatments, with the data collected from them used to select experimental treatments to continue to stage 2. Patients recruited in stage 2 are allocated to the selected treatments and the control. Combined data of stage 1 and stage 2 are used for a confirmatory phase III analysis. Appropriate analysis needs to adjust for selection bias of the stage 1 data. Point estimators exist for normally distributed outcome data. Extending these estimators to time to event data is not straightforward because treatment selection is based on correlated treatment effects and stage 1 patients who do not get events in stage 1 are followed-up in stage 2. We have derived an approximately uniformly minimum variance conditional unbiased estimator (UMVCUE) and compared its biases and mean squared errors to existing bias adjusted estimators. In simulations, one existing bias adjusted estimator has similar properties as the practically unbiased UMVCUE while the others can have noticeable biases but they are less variable than the UMVCUE. For confirmatory phase II/III clinical trials where unbiased estimators are desired, we recommend the UMVCUE or the existing estimator with which it has similar properties.

RESTART trial design: two-stage seamless transition design with operational considerations.

Oncology/hematology is a competitive therapeutic area where the landscape is constantly evolving. With regulatory support, many drug developers have spent a lot of resources on the operationalization of innovative clinical trial designs, for example, adaptive Bayesian designs in confirmatory clinical trial settings. While overall survival is considered the gold standard in these designs, it is often not a viable choice in identifying treatment efficacy at a reasonable pace, especially for early-stage therapies. In recent years, several binary response surrogate endpoints have been used for accelerated or conditional approval of novel cancer therapies. Utilizing surrogate endpoints in the study design to predict objective clinical outcomes, such as overall survival, is particularly fundamental in cancer treatment clinical development. This manuscript will investigate logistic and statistical considerations of our proposed RESTART design, a new two-stage, seamless, single- to double-arm Bayesian design. This design could be used for single-arm dose expansion to a randomized confirmatory study. The operating characteristics of the RESTART design are evaluated based on simulations. Future directions and further modifications of this design will also be elaborated.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them.

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

Practical characteristics of adaptive design in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Adaptive design methods are expected to be ethical, reflect real medical practice, increase the likelihood of research and development success and reduce the allocation of patients into ineffective treatment groups by the early termination of clinical trials. However, the comprehensive details regarding which types of clinical trials will include adaptive designs remain unclear. We examined the practical characteristics of adaptive design used in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of adaptive design clinical trials published from 2012 to 2015 using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with common search terms related to adaptive design. We systematically assessed the types and characteristics of adaptive designs and disease areas employed in the adaptive design trials. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our survey identified 245 adaptive design clinical trials. The number of trials by the publication year increased from 2012 to 2013 and did not greatly change afterwards. The most frequently used adaptive design was group sequential design (n = 222, 90.6%), especially for neoplasm or cardiovascular disease trials. Among the other types of adaptive design, adaptive dose/treatment group selection (n = 21, 8.6%) and adaptive sample-size adjustment (n = 19, 7.8%) were frequently used. The adaptive randomization (n = 8, 3.3%) and adaptive seamless design (n = 6, 2.4%) were less frequent. Adaptive dose/treatment group selection and adaptive sample-size adjustment were frequently used (up to 23%) in "certain infectious and parasitic diseases," "diseases of nervous system," and "mental and behavioural disorders" in comparison with "neoplasms" (<6.6%). For "mental and behavioural disorders," adaptive randomization was used in two trials of eight trials in total (25%). Group sequential design and adaptive sample-size adjustment were used frequently in phase 3 trials or in trials where study phase was not specified, whereas the other types of adaptive designs were used more in phase 2 trials. Approximately 82% (202 of 245 trials) resulted in early termination at the interim analysis. Among the 202 trials, 132 (54% of 245 trials) had fewer randomized patients than initially planned. This result supports the motive to use adaptive design to make study durations shorter and include a smaller number of subjects. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We found that adaptive designs have been applied to clinical trials in various therapeutic areas and interventions. The applications were frequently reported in neoplasm or cardiovascular clinical trials. The adaptive dose/treatment group selection and sample-size adjustment are increasingly common, and these adaptations generally follow the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) recommendations.

SPIRIT: A seamless phase I/II randomized design for immunotherapy trials.

Immunotherapy-treatments that enlist the immune system to battle tumors-has received widespread attention in cancer research. Due to its unique features and mechanisms for treating cancer, immunotherapy requires novel clinical trial designs. We propose a Bayesian seamless phase I/II randomized design for immunotherapy trials (SPIRIT) to find the optimal biological dose (OBD) defined in terms of the restricted mean survival time. We jointly model progression-free survival and the immune response. Progression-free survival is used as the primary endpoint to determine the OBD, and the immune response is used as an ancillary endpoint to quickly screen out futile doses. Toxicity is monitored throughout the trial. The design consists of two seamlessly connected stages. The first stage identifies a set of safe doses. The second stage adaptively randomizes patients to the safe doses identified and uses their progression-free survival and immune response to find the OBD. The simulation study shows that the SPIRIT has desirable operating characteristics and outperforms the conventional design.

Seamless Phase IIa/IIb and enhanced dose-finding adaptive design.

In drug development, when the drug class has a relatively well-defined path to regulatory approval and the enrollment is slow with certain patient populations, one may want to consider combining studies of different phases. This article considers combining a proof of concept (POC) study and a dose-finding (DF) study with a control treatment. Conventional DF study designs sometimes are not efficient, or do not have a high probability to find the optimal dose(s) for Phase III trials. This article seeks more efficient DF strategies that allow the economical testing of more doses. Hypothetical examples are simulated to compare the proposed adaptive design vs. the conventional design based on different models of the overall quantitative representation of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. The results show that the proposed adaptive design tests more active doses with higher power and comparable or smaller sample size in a shorter overall study duration for POC and DF, compared with a conventional design.

A comparison of methods for treatment selection in seamless phase II/III clinical trials incorporating information on short-term endpoints.

In an adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trial interim analysis, data are used for treatment selection, enabling resources to be focused on comparison of more effective treatment(s) with a control. In this paper, we compare two methods recently proposed to enable use of short-term endpoint data for decision-making at the interim analysis. The comparison focuses on the power and the probability of correctly identifying the most promising treatment. We show that the choice of method depends on how well short-term data predict the best treatment, which may be measured by the correlation between treatment effects on short- and long-term endpoints.

Data-driven treatment selection for seamless phase II/III trials incorporating early-outcome data.

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials are conducted in two stages with treatment selection at the first stage. In the first stage, patients are randomized to a control or one of k > 1 experimental treatments. At the end of this stage, interim data are analysed, and a decision is made concerning which experimental treatment should continue to the second stage. If the primary endpoint is observable only after some period of follow-up, at the interim analysis data may be available on some early outcome on a larger number of patients than those for whom the primary endpoint is available. These early endpoint data can thus be used for treatment selection. For two previously proposed approaches, the power has been shown to be greater for one or other method depending on the true treatment effects and correlations. We propose a new approach that builds on the previously proposed approaches and uses data available at the interim analysis to estimate these parameters and then, on the basis of these estimates, chooses the treatment selection method with the highest probability of correctly selecting the most effective treatment. This method is shown to perform well compared with the two previously described methods for a wide range of true parameter values. In most cases, the performance of the new method is either similar to or, in some cases, better than either of the two previously proposed methods.

A diagnostic phase III/IV seamless design to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness using the example of HEDOS and HEDOS II.

The development process of medical devices can be streamlined by combining different study phases. Here, for a diagnostic medical device, we present the combination of confirmation of diagnostic accuracy (phase III) and evaluation of clinical effectiveness regarding patient-relevant endpoints (phase IV) using a seamless design. This approach is used in the Thyroid HEmorrhage DetectOr Study (HEDOS & HEDOS II) investigating a post-operative hemorrhage detector named ISAR-M THYRO® in patients after thyroid surgery. Data from the phase III trial are reused as external controls in the control group of the phase IV trial. An unblinded interim analysis is planned between the two study stages which includes a recalculation of the sample size for the phase IV part after completion of the first stage of the seamless design. The study concept presented here is the first seamless design proposed in the field of diagnostic studies. Hence, the aim of this work is to emphasize the statistical methodology as well as feasibility of the proposed design in relation to the planning and implementation of the seamless design. Seamless designs can accelerate the overall trial duration and increase its efficiency in terms of sample size and recruitment. However, careful planning addressing numerous methodological and procedural challenges is necessary for successful implementation as well as agreement with regulatory bodies.

Types and progress of clinical trial design for breast cancer: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: In recent years, the field of breast cancer diagnosis and therapy has witnessed rapid technological advances. Concurrently, the emergence of molecular biology and novel detection methodologies has facilitated the transition of breast cancer management into the precision medicine era. The primary objective of this review is to discuss the transformation in the research and development paradigm for breast cancer therapies and strategies. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published over the past 20 years using keywords including "breast cancer", "clinical trial", "seamless", "master protocol", "umbrella", "basket", "platform", and "precision medicine". Articles were screened for eligibility and key data extracted. The search was limited to English-language publications. Key Content and Findings: The review identifies three core innovations in breast cancer trial methodology: (I) in terms of research speed, the traditional three-stage drug development models are being substituted by "seamless designs" as exemplified by the immunotherapy combination study NCT0328056. (II) Addressing research breadth, "master protocols" such as basket trials (IMMU-132-01), umbrella trials (FUTURE), and platform trials (I-SPY 2) have been introduced, allowing the simultaneous assessment of multiple treatments or disease subtypes within a singular framework. (III) Pertaining to research precision, newer designs utilize biomarkers such as "enrichment" (seen in EMBRACA and OlympiA trials) and "marker stratification" (as in the SOLAR-1 trial), enabling the identification of appropriate patient subgroups and the provision of tailored therapy strategies, a stark contrast to traditional histopathology-based evaluations. Conclusions: Clinical trial design in breast cancer research has been revolutionized, moving towards more efficient and targeted strategies. Despite the presence of ethical, logistical, and data complexities, it is anticipated that ongoing technological and regulatory enhancements will pave the way for even more refined research approaches, subsequently influencing future research, clinical practices, and policymaking in breast cancer care.

Comparison Between Simultaneous and Sequential Utilization of Safety and Efficacy for Optimal Dose Determination in Bayesian Model-Assisted Designs.

It has become quite common in recent early oncology trials to include both the dose-finding and the dose-expansion parts within the same study. This shift can be viewed as a seamless way of conducting the trials to obtain information on safety and efficacy hence identifying an optimal dose (OD) rather than just the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). One approach is to conduct a dose-finding part based solely on toxicity outcomes, followed by a dose expansion part to evaluate efficacy outcomes. Another approach employs only the dose-finding part, where the dose-finding decisions are made utilizing both the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of those enrolled patients. In this paper, we compared the two approaches through simulation studies under various realistic settings. The percentage of correct ODs selection, the average number of patients allocated to the ODs, and the average trial duration are reported in choosing the appropriate designs for their early-stage dose-finding trials, including expansion cohorts.

Shotgun: A Bayesian seamless phase I-II design to accelerate the development of targeted therapies and immunotherapy.

Drug development of novel antitumor agents is conventionally divided by phase and cancer indication. With the advent of new molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, this approach has become inefficient and dysfunctional. We propose a Bayesian seamless phase I-II "shotgun" design to evaluate the safety and antitumor efficacy of a new drug in multiple cancer indications simultaneously. "Shotgun" is used to describe the design feature that the trial begins with an all-comer dose finding phase to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and then is seamlessly split to multiple indication-specific cohort expansions. Patients treated during dose finding are rolled over to the cohort expansion for more efficient evaluation of efficacy, while patients enrolled in cohort expansion contribute to the continuous learning of the safety and tolerability of the new drug. During cohort expansion, interim analyses are performed to discontinue ineffective or unsafe expansion cohorts early. To improve the efficiency of such interim analyses, we propose a clustered Bayesian hierarchical model (CBHM) to adaptively borrow information across indications. A simulation study shows that compared to conventional approaches and the standard Bayesian hierarchical model, the shotgun design has substantially higher probabilities to discover indications that are responsive to the treatment in question, and is associated with a reasonable false discovery rate. The shotgun provides a phase I-II trial design for accelerating drug development and to build a more robust foundation for subsequent phase III trials. The proposed CBHM methodology also provides an efficient design for basket trials.

Considerations on the clinical development of COVID-19 vaccine from trial design perspectives.

COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, and an effective vaccine is needed. During the outbreak, the urgency for developing candidate vaccines has brought distinct challenges to clinical development. An efficacy trial, which measures whether the vaccine reduces the incidence of disease, is ordinarily required to fully evaluate vaccine efficacy. However, emergency use may be possible if promising immunogenicity results are observed. A ring vaccination trial, which recruits subjects connected to a known case either socially or geographically, is a solution to evaluate vaccine efficacy and control the spread of the disease simultaneously although its conduct is challenging. Nevertheless, when COVID-19 becomes a recurrent epidemic, an 'individual-level' efficacy trial is preferred. Innovative statistical designs, including seamless design, platform trial, master protocol design, are helpful to accelerate clinical development. A seamless Phase I/II design has been applied in multiple COVID-19 vaccine studies to date. However, Phase II/III design should be done very carefully. The control of type I error, maintaining trial blinding and statistical methods leading to unbiased estimates should be pre-specified in the clinical protocol. A Data Safety Monitoring Board is especially important, given the need to assure an adequate level of safety when society want a safe and effective vaccine.

Adaptive group sequential survival comparisons based on log-rank and pointwise test statistics.

Whereas the theory of confirmatory adaptive designs is well understood for uncensored data, implementation of adaptive designs in the context of survival trials remains challenging. Commonly used adaptive survival tests are based on the independent increments structure of the log-rank statistic. This implies some relevant limitations: On the one hand, essentially only the interim log-rank statistic may be used for design modifications (such as data-dependent sample size recalculation). Furthermore, the treatment arm allocation ratio in these classical methods is assumed to be constant throughout the trial period. Here, we propose an extension of the independent increments approach to adaptive survival tests that addresses some of these limitations. We present a confirmatory adaptive two-sample log-rank test that allows rejection regions and sample size recalculation rules to be based not only on the interim log-rank statistic, but also on point-wise survival rate estimates, simultaneously. In addition, the possibility is opened to adapt the treatment arm allocation ratio after each interim analysis in a data-dependent way. The ability to include point-wise survival rate estimators in the rejection region of a test for comparing survival curves might be attractive, e.g., for seamless phase II/III designs. Data-dependent adaptation of the allocation ratio could be helpful in multi-arm trials in order to successively steer recruitment into the study arms with the greatest chances of success. The methodology is motivated by the LOGGIC Europe Trial from pediatric oncology. Distributional properties are derived using martingale techniques in the large sample limit. Small sample properties are studied by simulation.

Adaptive Designs: Results of 2016 Survey on Perception and Use.

BACKGROUND: The DIA Adaptive Designs Scientific Working Group has a devoted subteam to performing surveys, literature reviews, and registry reviews every 4 years to assess the perception and use of adaptive designs (ADs) in the development of drugs and biologics. METHODS: A survey was distributed to pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, and contract research organizations to collect information about the usage of ADs of different types and perception of challenges for their use. Literature and registry reviews were conducted to assess the prevalence of ADs of different types in drug and biologics development. These results were compared to previous surveys and reviews using summary statistics. RESULTS: ADs appear to be more widely considered in the last 4 years as compared to earlier 4-year periods. CONCLUSIONS: The most common types of ADs remain early stopping, treatment group adaptations, and sample size re-estimation. Both stopping early for safety and changing the endpoint of the analyses were rarely mentioned in literature prior to 2012 but are now appearing more frequently. The barriers of change management and negative experiences by some institutions with ADs remain a source of concern. Additional, consistent training would be helpful to choose the right adaptation(s) needed for specific clinical trials and for planning appropriately for operational efficiency such as for drug supply management and data management. The perceived barrier of regulatory acceptance also remains a concern, which could be alleviated by additional interaction with agencies and an update of the FDA draft guidance to industry on adaptive designs.

Adaptive design implementation in confirmatory trials: methods, practical considerations and case studies.

The rapidly changing drug development landscapes have brought unique challenges to sponsors in designing clinical trials in a faster and more efficient way. With the ability to accelerate development timeline, reduce redundant sample size, and select the right dose and patient population during the clinical trial, adaptive designs help to increase the probability of success of clinical trials and eventually contribute to bringing the promising drugs to patients earlier and fulfilling their unmet medical needs. Although extensive adaptive design methods have been proposed in recent years, a comprehensive review of how to implement adaptive design in the practical confirmatory trials is still lacking. In this paper, we will review the evolving history of adaptive designs, updates of newly released regulatory guidance and emerging practical adaptive designs, including but not limited to sample size re-estimation, seamless design and surrogate endpoint used in the interim analysis. Furthermore, we will discuss the current practice of adaptive design implementation by demonstrating a complex oncology seamless phase 2/3 adaptive design case study. Through this example, we will introduce the critical roles of each cross disciplinary function, communication process and important documents when adaptive designs are implemented in real-world setting.

Seamless phase IIa/IIb adaptive design with the same primary endpoint for proof of concept and dose finding.

This paper considers combining a proof of concept (POC) study and a dose finding (DF) study where the POC and the DF share the same primary endpoint. An example based on real study conditions shows that compared to a conventional design the proposed adaptive design tests more active doses, with a smaller sample size and a shorter overall duration leading to a budget saving of 30% in study operations.

Adaptive clinical trial designs in oncology.

Adaptive designs have become popular in clinical trial and drug development. Unlike traditional trial designs, adaptive designs use accumulating data to modify the ongoing trial without undermining the integrity and validity of the trial. As a result, adaptive designs provide a flexible and effective way to conduct clinical trials. The designs have potential advantages of improving the study power, reducing sample size and total cost, treating more patients with more effective treatments, identifying efficacious drugs for specific subgroups of patients based on their biomarker profiles, and shortening the time for drug development. In this article, we review adaptive designs commonly used in clinical trials and investigate several aspects of the designs, including the dose-finding scheme, interim analysis, adaptive randomization, biomarker-guided randomization, and seamless designs. For illustration, we provide examples of real trials conducted with adaptive designs. We also discuss practical issues from the perspective of using adaptive designs in oncology trials.