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

dc.contributor.authorSharma, Manish R.
dc.contributor.authorKarrison, Theodore G.
dc.contributor.authorJin, Yuyan
dc.contributor.authorBies, Robert R.
dc.contributor.authorMaitland, Michael L.
dc.contributor.authorStadler, Walter M.
dc.contributor.authorRatain, Mark J.
dc.contributor.departmentMedicine, School of Medicine
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-11T14:19:01Z
dc.date.available2025-07-11T14:19:01Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscript
dc.identifier.citationSharma MR, Karrison TG, Jin Y, et al. Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(8):2309-2315. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/49356
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Association for Cancer Research
dc.relation.isversionof10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1815
dc.relation.journalClinical Cancer Research
dc.rightsPublisher Policy
dc.sourcePMC
dc.subjectResampling
dc.subjectPhase II
dc.subjectRandomized
dc.subjectSingle arm
dc.subjectTumor size
dc.titleResampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Sharma2012Resampling-AAM.pdf
Size:
598.9 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.04 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: