Evaluation of a multi-arm multi-stage Bayesian design for phase II drug selection trials - an example in hemato-oncology
Louis Jacob, Maria Uvarova, Sandrine Boulet, Inva Begaj, Sylvie Chevret, Louis Jacob, Maria Uvarova, Sandrine Boulet, Inva Begaj, Sylvie Chevret
Abstract
Background: Multi-Arm Multi-Stage designs aim at comparing several new treatments to a common reference, in order to select or drop any treatment arm to move forward when such evidence already exists based on interim analyses. We redesigned a Bayesian adaptive design initially proposed for dose-finding, focusing our interest in the comparison of multiple experimental drugs to a control on a binary criterion measure.
Methods: We redesigned a phase II clinical trial that randomly allocates patients across three (one control and two experimental) treatment arms to assess dropping decision rules. We were interested in dropping any arm due to futility, either based on historical control rate (first rule) or comparison across arms (second rule), and in stopping experimental arm due to its ability to reach a sufficient response rate (third rule), using the difference of response probabilities in Bayes binomial trials between the treated and control as a measure of treatment benefit. Simulations were then conducted to investigate the decision operating characteristics under a variety of plausible scenarios, as a function of the decision thresholds.
Results: Our findings suggest that one experimental treatment was less efficient than the control and could have been dropped from the trial based on a sample of approximately 20 instead of 40 patients. In the simulation study, stopping decisions were reached sooner for the first rule than for the second rule, with close mean estimates of response rates and small bias. According to the decision threshold, the mean sample size to detect the required 0.15 absolute benefit ranged from 63 to 70 (rule 3) with false negative rates of less than 2 % (rule 1) up to 6 % (rule 2). In contrast, detecting a 0.15 inferiority in response rates required a sample size ranging on average from 23 to 35 (rules 1 and 2, respectively) with a false positive rate ranging from 3.6 to 0.6 % (rule 3).
Conclusion: Adaptive trial design is a good way to improve clinical trials. It allows removing ineffective drugs and reducing the trial sample size, while maintaining unbiased estimates. Decision thresholds can be set according to predefined fixed error decision rates.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342692 .
Keywords: Adaptive design; Bayesian; Drop/select drug; MAMS.
Figures
References
- Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:206–209. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00126.
- Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS, Halabi S. Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:667–671. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5732.
- Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B, Hunsberger S, Ivy SP, Smith MA. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7199–7206. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.149.
- Ellenberg SS. Select-drop designs in clinical trials. Am Heart J. 2000;139:S158–160. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90064-4.
- Freidlin B, Korn EL, Gray R, Martin A. Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc Cancer Res. 2008;14:4368–4371. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0325.
- Bratton DJ, Phillips PPJ, Parmar MKB. A multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design for binary outcomes with application to tuberculosis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:139. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-139.
- Cheung YK. Selecting promising treatments in randomized phase II cancer trials with an active control. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:494–508. doi: 10.1080/10543400902802425.
- Royston P, Barthel FM-S, Parmar MK, Choodari-Oskooei B, Isham V. Designs for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes based on stopping guidelines for lack of benefit. Trials. 2011;12:81. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-81.
- Berry DA. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:27–36. doi: 10.1038/nrd1927.
- Lee JJ, Chu CT. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat Med. 2012;31:2955–2972. doi: 10.1002/sim.5404.
- Whitehead J, Cleary F, Turner A. Bayesian sample sizes for exploratory clinical trials comparing multiple experimental treatments with a control. Stat Med. 2015;34(12):2048–2061. doi: 10.1002/sim.6469.
- Zalavsky BG. Bayesian hypothesis testing in two-arm trials with dichotomous outcomes. Biometrics. 2013;69(1):157–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01806.x.
- Xie F, Ji Y, Tremmel L. A Bayesian adaptive design for multi-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I/II trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:739–748. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.03.001.
- Jung S-H. Randomized phase II trials with a prospective control. Stat Med. 2008;27:568–583. doi: 10.1002/sim.2961.
- Thall PF, Simon R. Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics. 1994;50:337–349. doi: 10.2307/2533377.
- Lee JJ, Xuemin Gu N, Suyu Liu N. Bayesian adaptive randomization designs for targeted agent development. Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2010;7:584–596. doi: 10.1177/1740774510373120.
- Du Y, Wang X, Jack Lee J. Simulation study for evaluating the performance of response-adaptive randomization. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;40:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.006.
- Pham-Gia T, Turkkan N, Eng P. Bayesian analysis of the difference of two proportions. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1993;22:1755–1771. doi: 10.1080/03610929308831114.
- Kawasaki Y, Miyaoka E. A Bayesian inference of P(π1 > π2) for two proportions. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22:425–437. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2010.544438.
- Cook J: Exact Calculation of Beta Inequalities. Tech. Rep. 2005,
- Morita S, Thall PF, Müller P: Evaluating the Impact of Prior Assumptions in Bayesian Biostatistics. Stat. Biosci. 2010, 2:1–17. [doi: 10.1007/s12561-010-9018-x] [PMID: 20668651PMCID: PMC2910452].
- Moatti M, Zohar S, Facon T, Moreau P, Mary J-Y, Chevret S. Modeling of experts’ divergent prior beliefs for a sequential phase III clinical trial. Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2013;10:505–514. doi: 10.1177/1740774513493528.
- Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2000;4:1–130.
- Taylor JMG, Braun TM, Li Z. Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design. Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2006;3:335–348.
- Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ. Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur. J. Cancer Oxf. Engl. 1990 2009, 45:275–280. [doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.029] [PMID: 19059773].
- Baron G, Perrodeau E, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2013, 11:84. [doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-84] [PMID: 23531230PMCID: PMC3621416].
- Wason JMS, Trippa L. A comparison of Bayesian adaptive randomization and multi-stage designs for multi-arm clinical trials. Stat Med. 2014;33:2206–2221. doi: 10.1002/sim.6086.
- Wason JMS, Jaki T. Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials. Stat Med. 2012;31:4269–4279. doi: 10.1002/sim.5513.
- Cai C, Yuan Y, Johnson VE. Bayesian adaptive phase II screening design for combination trials. Clin. Trials Lond. Engl. 2013, 10:353–362. [doi: 10.1177/1740774512470316] [PMID: 23359875PMCID: PMC3867529].
- Huang X, Biswas S, Oki Y, Issa J-P, Berry DA. A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies. Biometrics. 2007;63:429–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00685.x.
- Pan H, Xie F, Liu P, Xia J, Ji Y. A phase I/II seamless dose escalation/expansion with adaptive randomization scheme (SEARS). Clin. Trials Lond. Engl. 2014, 11:49–59. [doi: 10.1177/1740774513500081] [PMID: 24137041PMCID: PMC4281526].
- Freidlin B, Korn EL. Monitoring for lack of benefit: a critical component of a randomized clinical trial. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27:629–633. [doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.8905] [PMID: 19064977PMCID: PMC2645857].
- Brannath W, Zuber E, Branson M, Bretz F, Gallo P, Posch M, Racine-Poon A. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat Med. 2009;28:1445–1463. doi: 10.1002/sim.3559.
- Chevret S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only? Stat Med. 2012;31(11–12):1002–13. doi: 10.1002/sim.4363.
- Collins SP, Lindsell CJ, Pang PS, Storrow AB, Peacock WF, Levy P, Rahbar MH, Del Junco D, Gheorghiade M, Berry DA. Bayesian adaptive trial design in acute heart failure syndromes: moving beyond the mega trial. Am Heart J. 2012;164:138–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.11.023.
- Gu X, Yin G, Lee JJ. Bayesian two-step Lasso strategy for biomarker selection in personalized medicine development for time-to-event endpoints. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36:642–650. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.09.009.
- Lai TL, Lavori PW, Liao OY-W. Adaptive choice of patient subgroup for comparing two treatments. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39:191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.09.001.
- Gao Z, Roy A, Tan M. Multistage adaptive biomarker-directed targeted design for randomized clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.03.001.
Source: PubMed