Comparing Go/No-Go Decision-Making Properties Between Single Arm Phase II Trial Designs in Oncology.
Ther Innov Regul Sci
; 56(2): 291-300, 2022 03.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-34988927
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION:
Simon's design has been widely used in oncology to conduct single arm phase II trials and to make Go/No-Go development decision. Other authors have proposed designs with decision-making frameworks that include a third, "Consider" outcome. For results in the Consider zone, a final Go/No-Go development decision must still be made; however it is typically a subjective decision based on the totality of data and the development landscape. Under this framework, the probability of continuing development when the candidate therapy is truly ineffective or the probability of stopping development when the candidate therapy is truly effective is undefined.METHODS:
We use a motivating example to compare end of trial decision-making between Simon's two-stage approach and a Multilevel outcome approach. We present the minimum and maximum development decision error probabilities by varying whether candidates that end in the Consider zone would ultimately continue with development or not.RESULTS:
The Multilevel approach typically requires fewer patients, but the risk of making an incorrect drug development decision is inflated above the statistically defined Type I and Type II error rates. Compared to a Type I error rate of 20%, the Multilevel trial's maximum probability of moving forward with an ineffective therapy is 22%, 27%, and 36% for Consider zone sizes of 10%, 20%, and 30%, respectively.CONCLUSION:
The Multilevel approach provides flexibility in interpreting moderate efficacy results. However, the flexibility is accomplished with a lower sample size and corresponding uncertainty in the trial outcome that increases the risk of incorrect drug development decisions.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Projetos de Pesquisa
/
Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos
Tipo de estudo:
Prognostic_studies
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2022
Tipo de documento:
Article