Smaller sample sizes for phase II trials based on exact tests with actual error rates by trading-off their nominal levels of significance and power

I Khan, S-J Sarker, A Hackshaw, I Khan, S-J Sarker, A Hackshaw

Abstract

Background: Sample sizes for single-stage phase II clinical trials in the literature are often based on exact (binomial) tests with levels of significance (alpha (α) <5% and power >80%). This is because there is not always a sample size where α and power are exactly equal to 5% and 80%, respectively. Consequently, the opportunity to trade-off small amounts of α and power for savings in sample sizes may be lost.

Methods: Sample-size tables are presented for single-stage phase II trials based on exact tests with actual levels of significance and power. Trade-off in small amounts of α and power allows the researcher to select from several possible designs with potentially smaller sample sizes compared with existing approaches. We provide SAS macro coding and an R function, which for a given treatment difference, allow researchers to examine all possible sample sizes for specified differences are provided.

Results: In a single-arm study with P(0) (standard treatment)=10% and P(1) (new treatment)=20%, and specified α=5% and power=80%, the A'Hern approach yields n=78 (exact α=4.53%, power=80.81%). However, by relaxing α to 5.67% and power to 77.7%, a sample size of 65 can be used (a saving of 13 patients).

Interpretation: The approach we describe is especially useful for trials in rare disorders, or for proof-of-concept studies, where it is important to minimise the trial duration and financial costs, particularly in single-arm cancer trials commonly associated with expensive treatment options.

References

    1. A’Hern RP (2001) Sample size tables for exact single-stage phase II designs. Stat Med 20: 859–866
    1. Aogi K, Iwata H, Masuda N, Mukai H, Yoshida M, Rai Y, Taguchi K, Sasaki Y, Takashima S (2011) A phase II study of eribulin in Japanese patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23: 1441–1448
    1. Cannistra SA (2009) Phase II trials in journal of clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol 27(19): 3073–3076
    1. Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H (2003) Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. Marcel Dekker Publication: NY, USA
    1. Daniel J, Sargent T, Jeremy MG (2009) Current Issue in Oncology drug development, with a Focus on Phase II Trials. J Biopharm Stat 19(3): 556–62
    1. Fleming TR (1982) One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38: 142–151
    1. Hackshaw A K, Farrant H, Bulley S, Seckl M, Ledermann J (2008) Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study. J Royal Soc Med 101: 299–304
    1. Hackshaw A, Kirkwood A (2011) Interpreting and reporting clinical trials with results of borderline significance. BMJ 343: d3340.
    1. Hintze J (2001) PASS. NCSS, LLC (NCSS Statistical Software): Kaysville, Utah,
    1. Jung S-H, Carey M, Kim MK (2001) Graphical search for two-stage designs for phase ii clinical trials controlled clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 22: 367–372
    1. Jung S-H (2008) Randomized phase II trials with a prospective control. Stat Med (2008) ; 27: 568–583
    1. Lee JJ, Feng L (2005) Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. J Clin Oncol 23(19): 4450–7
    1. Machin D, Campbell M, Tan SB, Tan SH (2009) Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. Wiley-Blackwell publications: West Sussex, UK
    1. Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A (1997) Sample Size Tables For Clinical Studies. Blackwell Science
    1. Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ (2009) Optimising the designs of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomization. Eur J Cancer 45: 275–280
    1. Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Friedlin B, Hunsberger S, Ivy SP, Smith MA (2005) Design issues of randomised phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol 23: 7199–7206
    1. Sargent DJ, Taylor JM (2009) Current issues in oncology drug development, with a focus on Phase II trials. J Biopharm Stat 19(3): 556–562
    1. Schlesselman JJ, Reis IM (2006) Phase II clinical trials in oncology: strengths and limitations of two-stage designs. Cancer Invest 24: 404–412
    1. Seshan VE (2012) R package clinfun: . Accessed 15 August 2012
    1. Simon R (1989) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 10: 1–14

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa