Resampling Phase III Data to Assess Phase II Trial Designs and Endpoints
- 15 April 2012
- journal article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Clinical Cancer Research
- Vol. 18 (8), 2309-2315
- https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1815
Abstract
Purpose: The best phase II design and endpoint for growth inhibitory agents is controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from a positive (sorafenib vs. placebo; TARGET) and a negative (AE941 vs. placebo) phase III trial in metastatic renal cancer to compare the ability of various designs and endpoints to predict the known results. Experimental Design: A total of 770 and 259 patients from TARGET and the AE 941 trial, respectively, were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one-sided). Designs/endpoints: single arm, two-stage with response rate (RR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; 37 patients); and randomized, two arm (20–35 patients per arm) with RR by RECIST, mean log ratio of tumor sizes (log ratio), progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 90 days (PFS-90), and overall PFS. Results: Single-arm trials were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 1% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively. Randomized trials versus placebo with 20 patients per arm were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 7%, log ratio in 88% and 25%, PFS-90 in 64% and 15%, and overall PFS in 69% and 9% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the single-arm design and the randomized design comparing PFS, the randomized phase II design with the log ratio endpoint has greater power to predict the positive phase III result of sorafenib in renal cancer, but a higher false positive rate for the negative phase III result of AE 941. Clin Cancer Res; 18(8); 2309–15. ©2012 AACR.Keywords
Other Versions
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Model-Based Prediction of Phase III Overall Survival in Colorectal Cancer on the Basis of Phase II Tumor DynamicsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Phase II Trials in Journal of Clinical OncologyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Elucidation of Relationship Between Tumor Size and Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Can Aid Early Decision Making in Clinical Drug DevelopmentCancer Cell, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal Of Cancer, 2009
- Review of Phase II Trial Designs Used in Studies of Molecular Targeted Agents: Outcomes and Predictors of Success in Phase IIIJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2008
- Prognostic Factors of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Failure of Immunotherapy: New Paradigm From a Large Phase III Trial With Shark Cartilage Extract AE 941Journal of Urology, 2007
- Design of Phase II Cancer Trials Using a Continuous Endpoint of Change in Tumor Size: Application to a Study of Sorafenib and Erlotinib in Non Small-Cell Lung CancerJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2007
- Early Average Change in Tumor Size in a Phase 2 Trial: Efficient Endpoint or False Promise?JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2007
- Testing the Wrong Hypothesis in Phase II Oncology Trials: There Is a Better AlternativeClinical Cancer Research, 2007
- Sorafenib in Advanced Clear-Cell Renal-Cell CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007