Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints

Manish R. Sharma, Theodore G. Karrison, Yuyan Jin, Robert Bies, Michael L. Maitland, Walter M. Stadler, Mark J. Ratain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2309-2315
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Cancer Research
Volume18
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 15 2012

Fingerprint

Disease-Free Survival
Kidney Neoplasms
Placebos
Research Design
Survival Rate
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
shark cartilage extract
sorafenib
Growth
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Sharma, M. R., Karrison, T. G., Jin, Y., Bies, R., Maitland, M. L., Stadler, W. M., & Ratain, M. J. (2012). Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints. Clinical Cancer Research, 18(8), 2309-2315. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815

Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints. / Sharma, Manish R.; Karrison, Theodore G.; Jin, Yuyan; Bies, Robert; Maitland, Michael L.; Stadler, Walter M.; Ratain, Mark J.

In: Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 18, No. 8, 15.04.2012, p. 2309-2315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sharma, MR, Karrison, TG, Jin, Y, Bies, R, Maitland, ML, Stadler, WM & Ratain, MJ 2012, 'Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints', Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 2309-2315. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815
Sharma, Manish R. ; Karrison, Theodore G. ; Jin, Yuyan ; Bies, Robert ; Maitland, Michael L. ; Stadler, Walter M. ; Ratain, Mark J. / Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints. In: Clinical Cancer Research. 2012 ; Vol. 18, No. 8. pp. 2309-2315.
@article{3e8c8d2e30b4470a9bc3a458b73aa912,
title = "Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints",
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.",
author = "Sharma, {Manish R.} and Karrison, {Theodore G.} and Yuyan Jin and Robert Bies and Maitland, {Michael L.} and Stadler, {Walter M.} and Ratain, {Mark J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "2309--2315",
journal = "Clinical Cancer Research",
issn = "1078-0432",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resampling phase III data to assess phase II Trial designs and endpoints

AU - Sharma, Manish R.

AU - Karrison, Theodore G.

AU - Jin, Yuyan

AU - Bies, Robert

AU - Maitland, Michael L.

AU - Stadler, Walter M.

AU - Ratain, Mark J.

PY - 2012/4/15

Y1 - 2012/4/15

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859828707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859828707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815

DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 2309

EP - 2315

JO - Clinical Cancer Research

JF - Clinical Cancer Research

SN - 1078-0432

IS - 8

ER -