scholarly journals Evaluation of Treatment Effect with Paired Failure Times in a Single-Arm Phase II Trial in Oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthieu Texier ◽  
Federico Rotolo ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
Olivier Bouché ◽  
Jean-Pierre Pignon ◽  
...  

In early phase clinical trials of cytotoxic drugs in oncology, the efficacy is typically evaluated based on the tumor shrinkage. However, this criterion is not always appropriate for more recent cytostatic agents, and alternative endpoints have been proposed. The growth modulation index (GMI), defined as the ratio between the times to progression in two successive treatment lines, has been proposed for a single-arm phase II trials. The treatment effect is evaluated by estimating the rate of patients having a GMI superior to a given threshold. To estimate this rate, we investigated a parametric method based on the distribution of the times to progression and a nonparametric one based on a midrank estimator. Through simulations, we studied their operating characteristics and the impact of different design parameters (censoring, dependence, and distribution) on them. In these simulations, the nonparametric estimator slightly underestimated the rate and had slightly overconservative confidence intervals in some cases. Conversely, the parametric estimator overestimated the rate and had anticonservative confidence intervals in some cases. The nonparametric method appeared to be more robust to censoring than the parametric one. In conclusion, we recommend the nonparametric method, but the parametric method can be used as a supplementary tool.

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 452-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satrajit Roychoudhury ◽  
Nicolas Scheuer ◽  
Beat Neuenschwander

Background Well-designed phase II trials must have acceptable error rates relative to a pre-specified success criterion, usually a statistically significant p-value. Such standard designs may not always suffice from a clinical perspective because clinical relevance may call for more. For example, proof-of-concept in phase II often requires not only statistical significance but also a sufficiently large effect estimate. Purpose We propose dual-criterion designs to complement statistical significance with clinical relevance, discuss their methodology, and illustrate their implementation in phase II. Methods Clinical relevance requires the effect estimate to pass a clinically motivated threshold (the decision value (DV)). In contrast to standard designs, the required effect estimate is an explicit design input, whereas study power is implicit. The sample size for a dual-criterion design needs careful considerations of the study’s operating characteristics (type I error, power). Results Dual-criterion designs are discussed for a randomized controlled and a single-arm phase II trial, including decision criteria, sample size calculations, decisions under various data scenarios, and operating characteristics. The designs facilitate GO/NO-GO decisions due to their complementary statistical–clinical criterion. Limitations While conceptually simple, implementing a dual-criterion design needs care. The clinical DV must be elicited carefully in collaboration with clinicians, and understanding similarities and differences to a standard design is crucial. Conclusion To improve evidence-based decision-making, a formal yet transparent quantitative framework is important. Dual-criterion designs offer an appealing statistical–clinical compromise, which may be preferable to standard designs if evidence against the null hypothesis alone does not suffice for an efficacy claim.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasilija Sarac ◽  
Tatjana Atanasova-Pacemska

Single-phase motors are known for their small power ratings and their usage in various household appliances. Although they are not large electricity consumers, their widespread application contributes to the overall electricity consumption. In addition, standard IEC 60034-30-1:214 defines the efficiency levels for single- and three-phase motors and stipulates the increased electrical efficiency for the electrical motors. Therefore, this paper sets the parametric analysis of permanently split capacitor motor with five different design parameters that have impact on the efficiency of the motor. As an output from the parametric analysis, two different optimized motor models are obtained with increased efficiency. The impact of each parameter on motor efficiency—as well as on the other operating characteristics, like starting torque, overloading capacity, rated current, starting current, total losses, and power factor—is analyzed and adequate conclusions are derived. The obtained motor models are verified with Finite Element Method (FEM) for magnetic flux density distribution.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13516-13516
Author(s):  
J. Cassinello ◽  
J. V. Álvarez ◽  
M. J. García-López ◽  
E. Pujol ◽  
A. Colmenarejo ◽  
...  

13516 Background: In phase II trials, XELOX and XELIRI were highly active and well tolerated in first-line MCRC. The aim of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of XELOX followed by XELIRI as first-line treatment in MCRC. Specifically, we wanted to evaluate the impact of sequential scheduling on the dose-limiting neurotoxicity associated with oxaliplatin accumulation. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had histologically or cytologically confirmed MCRC, ECOG PS ≤ 2 and adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function. Prior chemotherapy for MCRC was not allowed. Pts received 4 cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000mg/m2 orally bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 i.v. d1, q3w) followed by 4 cycles of XELIRI (capecitabine 1000mg/m2 bid d1–14 + irinotecan 240mg/m2 i.v. d1, q3w). This sequential schedule was repeated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Results: Of the 35 pts analized to date: M/F (69%/31%); median age 68 years (range 41–78); ECOG PS 0–1 (94%); surgery (77%) and adjuvant chemotherapy (31%). 240 cycles (median 6, range 1–16) have been administered. 35 pts received XELOX (123 cycles, median 4), and 21 pts received XELIRI (83 cycles, median 4) in the first sequential schedule. In the second sequential schedule 6 pts received XELOX (22 cycles, median 4) and 4 pts received XELIRI (12 cycles, median 3.5). Median relative dose intensity was 88% for XEL, 96% for OX and 92% for IRI. In 27 efficacy evaluable pts, the ORR was 48% (95% CI, 29–67%). Eight pts were not evaluable due to adverse events (n=6), ongoing treatment (n=1) and lost of follow up (n=1). Conclusions: This sequential schedule is active and well tolerated in first-line MCRC. The improvement/recovery of the oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity during the XELIRI phase is also promising and allows the re-treatment with oxapliplatin in the next sequence without accumulating neurotoxicity. Final results will be presented at the meeting. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4524-4524
Author(s):  
Guru Sonpavde ◽  
Gregory Russell Pond ◽  
Neeraj Agarwal ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Angela Q. Qu ◽  
...  

4524 Background: Prognostic factors may impact on endpoints used in phase II trials of second-line therapy for advanced UC. We aimed to study the impact of prognostic factors (liver metastasis [LM], anemia [Hb<10 g/dl], ECOG-performance status [PS] ≥1, time from prior chemotherapy [TFPC]) on PFS6 and RR. Methods: Twelve phase II trials evaluating second-line chemotherapy and/or biologics (n=748) in patients with progressive disease were pooled. PFS was defined as tumor progression or death from any cause. PFS6 was defined from the date of registration and calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RR was defined using RECIST 1.0. A nomogram predicting PFS6 was constructed using the RMS package in R (www.r-project.org). Results: Data regarding progression, Hb, LM, PS and TFPC were available from 570 patients. The mean age was 65.1 years, 45.3% had ECOG-PS ≥1, 30.2% had LM, 14.6% had anemia and TFPC was <6 months (mo) in 60.2%. The overall median PFS was 2.7 mo, PFS6 was 22.2% (95% CI: 18.8-25.9) and RR was 17.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-20.9%). For every unit increase in risk group, the hazard of progression increased by 41% and the odds of response decreased by 48% (Table). A nomogram was constructed to predict PFS6 on an individual patient level. Conclusions: PFS6 and RR vary as a function of prognostic factors in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. A nomogram incorporating prognostic factors might facilitate the evaluation of activity across phase II trials enrolling heterogeneous populations and can help to select and stratify patients for phase III evaluation of suitable agents. [Table: see text]


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6099-TPS6099
Author(s):  
David Ira Rosenthal ◽  
Qiang Zhang ◽  
Merrill S. Kies ◽  
Minh-Tam Truong ◽  
Richard Jordan ◽  
...  

TPS6099 Background: Clinical trial results from phase II trials to select an experimental treatment arm for separate phase III trial comparison can require years. Cancer clinical trials also now aim at both survival and PRO/functional outcomes, especially in head and neck (HN) studies. We developed a unique seamless phase II/III trial design to save on sample size and trial duration. The initial multi-arm phase II trial selects the most effective regimen among multiple experimental arms by first comparing each of the new treatments to a common control arm, using chosen endpoints, such as progression free survival. The winner will be tested for overall survival in the phase III study. Methods: We propose a phase II/III design to test the efficacy of experimental arms of postoperative radiation (RT) + docetaxel or RT + docetaxel + cetuximab in patients with HN squamous cancer. These are compared to the control arm of RT + cisplatin in the phase II part. Only one arm will be selected to go on to phase III depending on efficacy (PFS), PRO and safety outcomes. One experimental arm must be sufficiently better than the common control arm and the winner not having increased toxicity or functional cost to be selected for phase III inclusion. If not, the trial is halted for futility. Patients in the phase II selected arm and the control arm are included in phase III testing. Group sequential method is used to design each component. Separate interim efficacy and futility analyses are built in such that each endpoint can be monitored as in separate phase II, III trials. Once sample sizes are derived, operating characteristics for the seamless II/III design are evaluated through simulations under the null and various alternative hypotheses. Savings on sample size and time are compared to typical separate phase II and III designs and to the design testing only the arm of RT + docetaxel + cetuximab in phase II. Conclusion: The phase II/III RTOG 1216 HNC trial offers cost effectiveness, operational efficiency and scientific innovation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11004-11004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Robert Judson ◽  
James P Morden ◽  
Michael Gordon Leahy ◽  
Vivek Bhadri ◽  
Quentin Campbell-Hewson ◽  
...  

11004 Background: ASPS is a rare disease (0.5-1% of soft tissue sarcomas) mainly affecting young people. It is unresponsive to conventional chemotherapy. Cediranib (C), an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and other receptor tyrosine kinases, has shown significant activity in ASPS in single arm phase II trials. CASPS (NCT01337401) was designed to permit discrimination between the impact of cediranib and the often intrinsically indolent nature of the disease. Methods: CASPS compared C (30mg od) with placebo (P) in a 2:1 double blind randomisation in patients (pts) age ≥16 years with metastatic ASPS progressive in the previous 6 months. Pts were unblinded at week 24, or at progression if sooner, when those on P started C. The primary endpoint of percentage change in the sum of target marker lesions (TMLsum) between baseline and week 24 (or progression if sooner) was compared between groups by Mann-Whitney test. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), week 24 response rate and best response (RECIST v1.1), safety/tolerability and overall survival (OS). One-sided p-values and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are reported. Results: 48 pts were recruited between 07/2011 and 07/2016 from 12 centres (UK, Australia & Spain). 52% of pts were female, median age was 31. Most common grade ≥3 adverse events on C were hypertension (23%), diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (9%). In the evaluable population (N = 44) median change in TMLsum on C was minus 8.3% (IQR minus 26.2% to +5.9%); versus P: +13.4% (IQR minus 0.6% to +21.3%), p = 0.0013. Best response by week 24 was partial response for 6/28 (21%) C pts compared with 0/16 on P (p = 0.053) and stable disease for an additional 19/28 (68%) on C and 12/16 (75%) on P. The PFS HR (C versus P) was 0.54 (90% CI 0.30-0.97, p = 0.041), median PFS: 10.8 mths on C versus 3.7 mths on P, OS at 12 mths was C: 96%; P: 64.3%. Conclusions: CASPS, the largest randomised trial to date in this disease, confirms the activity of C in ASPS, showing a significant reduction in tumour burden and improvement in PFS. Tumour tissue and serial blood samples will subsequently be investigated to identify potential predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT01337401.


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haolun Shi ◽  
Guosheng Yin

Conventional phase II clinical trials use either a single- or multi-arm comparison scheme to examine the therapeutic effects of the experimental drug. Both single- and multi-arm evaluations have their own merits; for example, single-arm phase II trials are easy to conduct and often require a smaller sample size, while multiarm trials are randomized and typically lead to a more objective comparison. To bridge the single- and double-arm schemes in one trial, we propose a two-stage design, in which the first stage takes a single-arm comparison of the experimental drug with the standard response rate (no concurrent treatment) and the second stage imposes a two-arm comparison by adding an active control arm. The design is calibrated using a new concept, the detectable treatment difference, to balance the trade-offs between futility termination, power, and sample size. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed method and provide an illustrative example of our design.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 667-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Korn ◽  
Boris Freidlin ◽  
Jeffrey S. Abrams ◽  
Susan Halabi

Phase II trials are used to show sufficient preliminary activity of a new treatment (in single-arm designs or randomized screening designs) or to select among treatments with demonstrated activity (in randomized selection designs). The treatments prioritized in a phase II trial are then tested definitively against a control treatment in a randomized phase III trial. Randomized phase II/III trials use an adaptive trial design that combines these two types of trials in one, with potential gains in time and reduced numbers of patients required to be treated. Two key considerations in designing a phase II/III trial are whether to suspend accrual while the phase II data mature and the choice of phase II target treatment effect. We discuss these phase II/III design parameters, give examples of phase II/III trials, and provide recommendations concerning efficient phase II/III trial designs.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 28-29
Author(s):  
Swapna Thota ◽  
Terrence J Bradley ◽  
Hetty E. Carraway ◽  
Elizabeth A. Griffiths

Introduction: Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) have limited therapeutic options and effective management remains clinical challenge. For medically fit patients, salvage therapy with an intensive chemotherapy regimen is the standard of care with remission rates of about 40-50%. Long-term survival is achievable only with disease control followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). A majority of patients with R/R AML who achieve a morphologic clinical remission with salvage chemotherapy frequently harbor detectable clonal events that act as a reservoir for disease relapse. Relapsed/refractory isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutant AML patients who undergo cytarabine based salvage chemotherapy will largely retain detectable IDH2 mutations and enasidenib maintenance therapy offers an attractive and tolerable approach to maintenance for such patients. Enasidenib (AG221) is a first-in-class, selective, potent inhibitor of the neomorphic activity of mutant IDH2 enzyme. It is FDA approved as monotherapy for R/R AML with a time to response of approximately 2 months, but there is limited data on the use of this agent following salvage chemotherapy. In the upfront setting, the combination of enasidenib with induction chemotherapy has demonstrated high response rates, providing rationale for this approach (and tolerability with the combination) in the R/R population. Methods: To understand the impact of tailored consolidation following salvage chemotherapy in fit R/R AML we designed a multi-center, phase II trial with 2 cohorts. Cohort assignment is based upon the investigators assignment of patients eligibility (cohort 1.) for allogeneic HCT or (cohort 2) no allogeneic HCT. The main inclusion criteria are, (a.) age over 18 years (b.) received salvage cytarabine based chemotherapy or venetoclax combined with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or 2 or more cycles of HMA for confirmed R/R AML (c.) achieved at least &gt;50% reduction in blast percentage in a nadir marrow from salvage chemotherapy and (d.) adequate organ function and lack of acute life threatening illness. Patients will have received the investigator's choice of salvage therapy and subsequently undergo bone marrow assessment with protocol sampling. Patients confirmed to have obtained a remission will then begin enasidenib 100mg once a day starting between 14 and 60 days after starting salvage therapy. Patients in cohort 1 will receive 1-4 cycles of enasidenib and proceed with HCT; enasidenib can be re-initiated between D30-100 following HCT for a planned total of 24 cycles. Cohort 2 will continue enasidenib maintenance until progression/death or relapse (Schema: Fig 1). Study Endpoints: The primary endpoint of the study to determine the effect of enasidenib maintenance therapy following salvage induction therapy for IDH2 R/R AML, we will evaluate EFS at 12 months separately in the two cohorts of the study. Secondary endpoints include (1) Rate of successful HCT of the subjects enrolled on the study (2) Median duration of maintenance therapy in both the study arms & (3) Overall survival at 12 and 24 months in each cohort. The efficacy of the treatment will be assessed using Simon (1989) optimal two-stage, single arm, unblinded Phase II trials allowing for early termination for futility. This design has a 90% power to detect a 20% improvement rate compared to historical data, while controlling to 10% probability of erroneously findings. A total of 39 (C1) + 25 (C2) = 64 evaluable patients will be enrolled. Interim safety analysis will be done after enrollment of the first 28 patient in C1 and 17 patients in C2. Conclusion: This study is currently is open and enrolling patients at multiple collaborative institutions to answer the key question of efficacy of enasidenib maintenance following salvage chemotherapy. Correlative studies are being performed to understand minimal residual disease in IDH2 mutant AML and its clonal architecture. Disclosures Carraway: BMS: Consultancy, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ASTEX: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Abbvie: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Takeda: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Griffiths:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document