Bayesian Single-Arm Phase II Trial Design

e19010 Background: No combination regimen has proven superior to single agent chemotherapy as 2nd-line treatment for NSCLC. The absence of cross-resistance with cisplatin/carboplatin, favorable toxicity profile, along with both pre-clinical and clinical evidence of activity make O a good candidate for combination with D as 2nd-line therapy of NSCLC. We evaluated the activity of DO in this setting using a novel phase II trial design. Methods: This multicenter, non-comparative randomized phase II trial evaluated the activity of D (75 mg/m2 d1) and O (70 mg/m2 d2) every 3 weeks in previously treated NSCLC pts; the comparator arm was D (75 mg/m2 d1 every 3 weeks). This one-stage, three-outcome phase II trial design (Sargent, Control Clin Trials 2001) had 21 evaluable pts/arm. All had histologically confirmed NSCLC that progressed during/after platinum-based chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was response rate; secondary endpoints were toxicity, time to progression (TTP), 1-yr survival. Results: Fifty pts were enrolled. Pts characteristics: M/F, 76/24%; median age 62 yrs (range 43–69); ECOG PS 0/1, 36/64%; adenocarcinoma/other, 36/64%. With 48 pts evaluable, partial response was seen in 20% and 8% of pts; stable disease in 52% and 32% and progressive disease in 24% and 56% for DO and D, respectively; 1 pt was inevaluable due to early death (D arm). Main grade 3–4 toxicities were: neutropenia 56% and 64%; febrile neutropenia 4% and 8%; diarrhea 12% and 4% for DO and D, respectively. Median TTP was 4.9 and 1.8 months, median survival 10.9 and 6.9 months, and 1-yr survival 41% and 16% for DO and D, respectively. Conclusions: This study shows how novel phase II trial designs enrolling a limited number of pts may help identify promising regimens for subsequent study in phase III trials. The level of activity for DO we observed satisfied the pre-defined study primary endpoint and warrants further evaluation of this combination as 2nd-line therapy for NSCLC. Protocol developed at the 6th FECS/AACR/ASCO Workshop on Methods in Clinical Cancer Research, Flims 2004, with Professors Marc Buyse and Chris Twelves. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Randomized Phase II Trial Designs With Biomarkers

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.43.3946 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (26) ◽

pp. 3304-3309 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

Boris Freidlin ◽

Lisa M. McShane ◽

Mei-Yin C. Polley ◽

Edward L. Korn

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Trial Design ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Published Data ◽

Phase Ii Trials ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

New Therapy ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Enrichment Designs

Efficient development of targeted therapies that may only benefit a fraction of patients requires clinical trial designs that use biomarkers to identify sensitive subpopulations. Various randomized phase III trial designs have been proposed for definitive evaluation of new targeted treatments and their associated biomarkers (eg, enrichment designs and biomarker-stratified designs). Before proceeding to phase III, randomized phase II trials are often used to decide whether the new therapy warrants phase III testing. In the presence of a putative biomarker, the phase II trial should also provide information as to what type of biomarker phase III trial is appropriate. A randomized phase II biomarker trial design is proposed, which, after completion, recommends the type of phase III trial to be used for the definitive testing of the therapy and the biomarker. The recommendations include the possibility of proceeding to a randomized phase III of the new therapy with or without using the biomarker and also the possibility of not testing the new therapy further. Evaluations of the proposed trial design using simulations and published data demonstrate that it works well in providing recommendations for phase III trial design.

Download Full-text