Randomized Phase II Trials: Time for a New Era in Clinical Trial Design

AbstractThe classic single-arm oncology phase II trial designs for evaluating an experimental regimen/agent are limited by multiple sources of bias arising from the inability to separate trial effects (such as patient selection, trial eligibility, imaging techniques and assessment schedule, and treatment locations) from treatment effect on clinical outcomes. Changes in patient population based on biologic subsetting, newer imaging technologies, the use of alternative end points, constrained resources, and the multitude of promising therapies for a given disease make randomized phase II designs, with a concurrent control arm where necessary, attractive. In this brief report, we discuss the salient features of the randomized designs for phase II trials, which when properly applied under the constraints of their underlying inference framework can assure optimal use of limited phase III financial and patient resources

All-Comers versus Enrichment Design Strategy in Phase II Trials

Abstract:Designs for biomarker validation have been proposed and used in the phase III oncology clinical trial setting. Broadly, these designs follow either an enrichment (i.e., targeted) strategy or an all-comers (i.e., unselected) strategy. An enrichment design screens patients for the presence or absence of a marker or a panel of markers and then only includes patients who either have or do not have a certain marker characteristic or profile. In contrast, all patients meeting the eligibility criteria (regardless of a particular biomarker status) are entered into an all-comers design. The strength of the preliminary evidence, the prevalence of the marker, the reproducibility and validity of the assay, and the feasibility of real-time marker assessment play a major role in the choice of the design. In this report, we discuss the parameters under which the enrichment or an all-comers design strategy would be appropriate for phase II trials

Genomic advances and their impact on clinical trial design

Medical treatment for patients has historically been based on two primary elements: the expected outcome for the patient, and the ability of treatment to improve the expected outcome. The advance in genomic technologies has the potential to change this paradigm and add substantial value to current medical practice by providing an integrated approach to guide patient-specific treatment selection using the genetic make-up of the disease and the genotype of the patient. Specifically, genomic signatures can aid in patient stratification (risk assessment), treatment response identification (surrogate markers), and/or in differential diagnosis (identifying who is likely to respond to which drug(s)). Several critical issues, including scientific rationale, clinical trial design, marker assessment methods, cost and feasibility have to be carefully considered in the validation of biomarkers through clinical research before they can be routinely integrated into clinical practice. Here, we highlight the impact of genomic advances on various aspects of clinical trial design

The Direct Assignment Option as a Modular Design Component: An Example for the Setting of Two Predefined Subgroups

Background. A phase II design with an option for direct assignment (stop randomization and assign all patients to experimental treatment based on interim analysis, IA) for a predefined subgroup was previously proposed. Here, we illustrate the modularity of the direct assignment option by applying it to the setting of two predefined subgroups and testing for separate subgroup main effects. Methods. We power the 2-subgroup direct assignment option design with 1 IA (DAD-1) to test for separate subgroup main effects, with assessment of power to detect an interaction in a post-hoc test. Simulations assessed the statistical properties of this design compared to the 2-subgroup balanced randomized design with 1 IA, BRD-1. Different response rates for treatment/control in subgroup 1 (0.4/0.2) and in subgroup 2 (0.1/0.2, 0.4/0.2) were considered. Results. The 2-subgroup DAD-1 preserves power and type I error rate compared to the 2-subgroup BRD-1, while exhibiting reasonable power in a post-hoc test for interaction. Conclusion. The direct assignment option is a flexible design component that can be incorporated into broader design frameworks, while maintaining desirable statistical properties, clinical appeal, and logistical simplicity

Thirty- and ninety-day outcomes after sublobar resection with and without brachytherapy for non–small cell lung cancer: Results from a multicenter phase III study

ObjectiveSublobar resection (SR) is commonly used for patients considered high risk for lobectomy. Nonoperative therapies are increasingly being reported for patients with similar risk because of perceived lower morbidity. We report 30- and 90-day adverse events (AEs) from American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4032, a multicenter phase III study for high-risk patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer.MethodsData from 222 evaluable patients randomized to SR (n = 114) or SR with brachytherapy (n = 108) are reported. AEs were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0, at 30 and 90 days after surgery. Risk factors (age, percent baseline carbon monoxide diffusion in the lung [DLCO%], percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1%], upper lobe vs lower lobe resections, performance status, surgery approach, video-assisted thoracic surgery vs open and extent, and wedge vs segmentectomy) were analyzed using a multivariable logistic model for their impact on the incidence of grade 3 or higher (G3+) AEs. Respiratory AEs were also specifically analyzed.ResultsMedian age, FEV1%, and DLCO% were similar in the 2 treatment groups. There was no difference in the location of resection (upper vs lower lobe) or the use of segmental or wedge resections. There were no differences between the groups with respect to “respiratory” G3+ AEs (30 days: 14.9% vs 19.4%, P = .35; 0–90 days: 19.3% vs 25%, P = .31) and “any” G3+ AEs (30 days: 25.4% vs 30.6%, P = .37; 0–90 days: 29.8% vs 37%, P = .25). Further analysis combined the 2 groups. Mortality occurred in 3 patients (1.4%) by 30 days and in 6 patients (2.7%) by 90 days. Four of the 6 deaths were thought to be due to surgery. When considered as continuous variables, FEV1% was associated with “any” G3+ AE at days 0 to 30 (P = .03; odds ratio [OR] = 0.98) and days 0 to 90 (P = .05; OR = 0.98), and DLCO% was associated with “respiratory” G3+ AE at days 0 to 30 (P = .03; OR = 0.97) and days 0 to 90 (P = .05; OR = 0.98). Segmental resection was associated with a higher incidence of any G3+ AE compared with wedge resection at days 0 to 30 (40.3% vs 22.7%; OR = 2.56; P < .01) and days 0 to 90 (41.5% vs 29.7%; OR = 1.96; P = .04). The median FEV1% was 50%, and the median DLCO% was 46%. By using these median values as potential cutpoints, only a DLCO% of less than 46% was significantly associated with an increased risk of “respiratory” and “any” G3+ AE for days 0 to 30 and 0 to 90.ConclusionsIn a multicenter setting, SR with brachytherapy was not associated with increased morbidity compared with SR alone. SR/SR with brachytherapy can be performed safely in high-risk patients with non–small cell lung cancer with low 30- and 90-day mortality and acceptable morbidity. Segmental resection was associated with increased “any” G3+ AE, and DLCO% less than 46% was associated with “any” G3+ AE and “respiratory” G3+ AE at both 30 and 90 days

Comparison of Continuous versus Categorical Tumor Measurement-Based Metrics to Predict Overall Survival in Cancer Treatment Trials

The categorical definition of response assessed via the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors has documented limitations. We sought to identify alternative metrics for tumor response that improve prediction of overall survival

ANtiangiogenic Second-line Lung cancer Meta-Analysis on individual patient data in non-small cell lung cancer:ANSELMA

BACKGROUND: Now that immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (CT) is one standard option in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there exists a medical need to assess the efficacy of second-line treatments (2LT) with antiangiogenics (AA). We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to validate the efficacy of these combinations as 2LT. METHODS: Randomised trials of AA plus standard 2LT compared to 2LT alone that ended accrual before 2015 were eligible. Fixed-effect models were used to compute pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS, main end-point), progression-free survival (PFS) and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Sixteen trials were available (8,629 patients, 64% adenocarcinoma). AA significantly prolonged OS (HR = 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.89; 0.98], p = 0.005) and PFS (0.80 [0.77; 0.84], p < 0.0001) compared with 2LT alone. Absolute 1-year OS and PFS benefit for AA were +1.8% [-0.4; +4.0] and +3.5% [+1.9; +5.1], respectively. The OS benefit of AA was higher in younger patients (HR = 0.87 [95% CI: 0.76; 1.00], 0.89 [0.81; 0.97], 0.94 [0.87; 1.02] and 1,04 [0.93; 1.17] for patients <50, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years old, respectively; trend test: p = 0.02) and in patients who started AA within 9 months after starting the first-line therapy (0.88 [0.82; 0.99]) than in patients who started AA later (0.99 [0.91; 1.08]) (interaction: p = 0.03). Results were similar for PFS. AA increased the risk of hypertension (p < 0.0001), but not the risk of pulmonary thromboembolic events (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In the 2LT of advanced NSCLC, adding AA significantly prolongs OS and PFS, but the benefit is clinically limited, mainly observed in younger patients and after shorter time since the start of first-line therapy