Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials
Background Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment. Methods Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carc...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | British journal of cancer Ročník 126; číslo 2; s. 204 - 210 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
01.02.2022
Nature Publishing Group |
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 0007-0920, 1532-1827, 1532-1827 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Shrnutí: | Background
Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment.
Methods
Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms.
Results
The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick.
Conclusions
We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials. |
|---|---|
| Bibliografie: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0007-0920 1532-1827 1532-1827 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41416-021-01613-5 |