-
Multi-outcome trials with a generalised number of efficacious outcomes
Authors:
Martin Law,
Michael J. Grayling,
Adrian P. Mander
Abstract:
Existing multi-outcome designs focus almost entirely on evaluating whether all outcomes show evidence of efficacy or whether at least one outcome shows evidence of efficacy. While a small number of authors have provided multi-outcome designs that evaluate when a general number of outcomes show promise, these designs have been single-stage in nature only. We therefore propose two designs, of group-…
▽ More
Existing multi-outcome designs focus almost entirely on evaluating whether all outcomes show evidence of efficacy or whether at least one outcome shows evidence of efficacy. While a small number of authors have provided multi-outcome designs that evaluate when a general number of outcomes show promise, these designs have been single-stage in nature only. We therefore propose two designs, of group-sequential and drop the loser form, that provide this design characteristic in a multi-stage setting. Previous such multi-outcome multi-stage designs have allowed only for a maximum of two outcomes; our designs thus also extend previous related proposals by permitting any number of outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 18 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Two-stage single-arm trials are rarely reported adequately
Authors:
Michael J. Grayling,
Adrian P. Mander
Abstract:
Purpose: Two-stage single-arm trial designs are commonly used in phase II oncology to infer treatment effects for a binary primary outcome (e.g., tumour response). It is imperative that such studies be designed, analysed, and reported effectively. However, there is little available evidence on whether this is the case, particularly for key statistical considerations. We therefore comprehensively r…
▽ More
Purpose: Two-stage single-arm trial designs are commonly used in phase II oncology to infer treatment effects for a binary primary outcome (e.g., tumour response). It is imperative that such studies be designed, analysed, and reported effectively. However, there is little available evidence on whether this is the case, particularly for key statistical considerations. We therefore comprehensively review such trials, examining in particular quality of reporting. Methods: Published oncology trials that utilised "Simon's two-stage design" over a 5 year period were identified and reviewed. Articles were evaluated on whether they reported sufficient design details, such as the required sample size, and analysis details, such as a confidence interval (CI). The articles that did not adjust their inference for the incorporation of an interim analysis were re-analysed to evaluate the impact on their reported point estimate and CI. Results: Four hundred and twenty five articles that reported the results of a single treatment arm were included. Of these, 47.5% provided the five components that ensure design reproducibility. Only 1.2% and 2.1% reported an adjusted point estimate or CI, respectively. Just 55.3% of trials provided the final stage rejection bound, indicating many trials did not test the hypothesis the design is constructed to assess. Re-analysis of the trials suggests that reported point estimates underestimated treatment effects and that reported CIs were too narrow. Conclusion: Key design details of two-stage single-arm trials are often unreported. Whilst inference is regularly performed, it is rarely done so in a way that removes the bias introduced by the interim analysis. In order to maximise their value, future studies must improve the way that they are analysed and reported.
△ Less
Submitted 8 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
-
Optimal curtailed designs for single arm phase II clinical trials
Authors:
Martin Law,
Michael J. Grayling,
Adrian P. Mander
Abstract:
In single-arm phase II oncology trials, the most popular choice of design is Simon's two-stage design, which allows early stop** at one interim analysis. However, the expected trial sample size can be reduced further by allowing curtailment. Curtailment is stop** when the final go or no-go decision is certain, so-called non-stochastic curtailment, or very likely, known as stochastic curtailmen…
▽ More
In single-arm phase II oncology trials, the most popular choice of design is Simon's two-stage design, which allows early stop** at one interim analysis. However, the expected trial sample size can be reduced further by allowing curtailment. Curtailment is stop** when the final go or no-go decision is certain, so-called non-stochastic curtailment, or very likely, known as stochastic curtailment.
In the context of single-arm phase II oncology trials, stochastic curtailment has previously been restricted to stop** in the second stage and/or stop** for a no-go decision only. We introduce two designs that incorporate stochastic curtailment and allow stop** after every observation, for either a go or no-go decision. We obtain optimal stop** boundaries by searching over a range of potential conditional powers, beyond which the trial will stop for a go or no-go decision. This search is novel: firstly, the search is undertaken over a range of values unique to each possible design realisation. Secondly, these values are evaluated taking into account the possibility of early stop**. Finally, each design realisation's operating characteristics are obtained exactly.
The proposed designs are compared to existing designs in a real data example. They are also compared under three scenarios, both with respect to four single optimality criteria and using a loss function.
The proposed designs are superior in almost all cases. Optimising for the expected sample size under either the null or alternative hypothesis, the saving compared to the popular Simon's design ranges from 22% to 55%.
△ Less
Submitted 6 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
