scholarly journals A Critical Review on Adaptive Sample Size Re-estimation (SSR) Designs for Superiority Trials with Continuous Endpoints

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Cai ◽  
Yi Tsong ◽  
Meiyu Shen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Adaptive Design ◽  
Sample Size Determination ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Superiority Trials

Adaptive sample size re-estimation (SSR) methods have been widely used for designing clinical trials, especially during the past two decades. We give a critical review for several commonly used two-stage adaptive SSR designs for superiority trials with continuous endpoints. The objective, design and some of our suggestions and concerns of each design will be discussed in this paper. Keywords: Adaptive Design; Sample Size Re-estimation; Review Introduction Sample size determination is a key part of designing clinical trials. The objective of a good clinical trial design is to achieve the balance between efficiently spending resources and enrolling enough patients to achieve a desired power. At the designing stage of a clinical trial, there usually only have limited information available about the population, so that the sample size calculated at this stage may not be sufficient to address the study objective. Assumed that the data from two parallel treatment groups (e.g. treatment and control groups) are normally distributed with mean treatment effect μ_1 and μ_2, and equal within-group variance 𝜎2. Let the mean difference (treatment effect) . The efficacy of the treatment will be evaluated by testing the hypothesis.

A new design for phase II single-arm clinical trials: Bayesian predictive sample size selection design.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6576-6576
Author(s):  
Satoshi Teramukai ◽  
Takashi Daimon ◽  
Sarah Zohar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Adaptive Design ◽  
Sample Size Determination ◽  
Type I ◽  
Early Stopping ◽  
Size Selection ◽  
Predictive Probability ◽  
Error Probabilities

6576 Background: The aim of phase II trials is to determine if a new treatment is promising for further testing in confirmatory clinical trials. Most phase II clinical trials are designed as single-arm trials using a binary outcome with or without interim monitoring for early stopping. In this context, we propose a Bayesian adaptive design denoted as PSSD, predictive sample size selection design (Statistics in Medicine 2012;31:4243-4254). Methods: The design allows for sample size selection followed by any planned interim analyses for early stopping of a trial, together with sample size determination before starting the trial. In the PSSD, we determined the sample size using the predictive probability criterion with two kinds of prior distributions, that is, an ‘analysis prior’ used to compute posterior probabilities and a ‘design prior’ used to obtain prior predictive distributions. In the sample size determination, we provide two sample sizes, that is, N and Nmax, using two types of design priors. At each interim analysis, we calculate the predictive probability of achieving a successful result at the end of the trial using analysis prior in order to stop the trial in case of low or high efficacy, and we select an optimal sample size, that is, either N or Nmax as needed, on the basis of the predictive probabilities. Results: We investigated the operating characteristics through simulation studies, and the PSSD retrospectively applies to a lung cancer clinical trial. As the number of interim looks increases, the probability of type I errors slightly decreases, and that of type II errors increases. The type I error probabilities of the probabilities of the proposed PSSD are almost similar to those of the non-adaptive design. The type II error probabilities in the PSSD are between those of the two fixed sample size (N or Nmax) designs. Conclusions: From a practical standpoint, the proposed design could be useful in phase II single-arm clinical trials with a binary endpoint. In the near future, this approach will be implemented in actual clinical trials to assess its usefulness and to extend it to more complicated clinical trials.

Planning the Size of Clinical Trials with Allowance for Patient Noncompliance

1990 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 243-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. A. Moussa
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Event Rate ◽  
Survival Functions ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Patient Noncompliance ◽  
Event Rates ◽  
Larger Sample

AbstractVarious approaches are considered for adjustment of clinical trial size for patient noncompliance. Such approaches either model the effect of noncompliance through comparison of two survival distributions or two simple proportions. Models that allow for variation of noncompliance and event rates between time intervals are also considered. The approach that models the noncompliance adjustment on the basis of survival functions is conservative and hence requires larger sample size. The model to be selected for noncompliance adjustment depends upon available estimates of noncompliance and event rate patterns.

scholarly journals Estimands: bringing clarity and focus to research questions in clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e052953
Author(s):  
Timothy Peter Clark ◽  
Brennan C Kahan ◽  
Alan Phillips ◽  
Ian White ◽  
James R Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Research Questions

Precise specification of the research question and associated treatment effect of interest is essential in clinical research, yet recent work shows that they are often incompletely specified. The ICH E9 (R1) Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials introduces a framework that supports researchers in precisely and transparently specifying the treatment effect they aim to estimate in their clinical trial. In this paper, we present practical examples to demonstrate to all researchers involved in clinical trials how estimands can help them to specify the research question, lead to a better understanding of the treatment effect to be estimated and hence increase the probability of success of the trial.

scholarly journals Geographic Disparities In Access To Cancer Clinical Trials In India

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santam Chakraborty ◽  
Indranil Mallick ◽  
Hung N Luu ◽  
Tapesh Bhattacharyya ◽  
Arunsingh Moses ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
The State ◽  
Cancer Site ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Geographic Disparities ◽  
Incident Cancer ◽  
Incident Cases

Abstract Introduction The current study was aimed at quantifying the disparity in geographic access to cancer clinical trials in India. Methods We collated data of cancer clinical trials from the clinical trial registry of India (CTRI) and data on state-wise cancer incidence from the Global Burden of Disease Study. The total sample size for each clinical trial was divided by the trial duration to get the sample size per year. This was then divided by the number of states in which accrual was planned to get the sample size per year per state (SSY). For interventional trials investigating a therapy, the SSY was divided by the number of incident cancers in the state to get the SSY per 1,000 incident cancer cases. The SSY data was then mapped to visualise the geographical disparity.Results We identified 181 ongoing studies, of whom 132 were interventional studies. There was a substantial inter-state disparity - with a median SSY of 1.55 per 1000 incident cancer cases (range 0.00 - 296.81 per 1,000 incident cases) for therapeutic interventional studies. Disparities were starker when cancer site-wise SSY was considered. Even in the state with the highest SSY, only 29.7 % of the newly diagnosed cancer cases have an available slot in a therapeutic cancer clinical trial. Disparities in access were also apparent between academic (range: 0.21 - 226.60) and industry-sponsored trials (range: 0.17 - 70.21).Conclusion There are significant geographic disparities in access to cancer clinical trials in India. Future investigations should evaluate the reasons and mitigation approaches for such disparities.

Control arm heterogeneity in trials for unselected advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1082-1082
Author(s):  
Kinisha Gala ◽  
Ankit Kalucha ◽  
Samuel Martinet ◽  
Anushri Goel ◽  
Kalpana Devi Narisetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Sample Size Calculations ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Combination Regimens

1082 Background: Primary endpoints of clinical trials frequently include subgroup-analyses. Several solid cancers such as aTNBC are heterogeneous, which can lead to unpredictable control arm performance impairing accurate assumptions for sample size calculations. We explore the value of a comprehensive clinical trial results repository in assessing control arm heterogeneity with aTNBC as the pilot. Methods: We identified P2/3 trials reporting median overall survival (mOS) and/or median progression-free survival (mPFS) in unselected aTNBC through a systematic search of PubMed, clinical trials databases and conference proceedings. Trial arms with sample sizes ≤25 or evaluating drugs no longer in development were excluded. Due to inconsistency among PD-L1 assays, PD-L1 subgroup analyses were not assessed separately. The primary aim was a descriptive analysis of control arm mOS and mPFS across all randomized trials in first line (1L) aTNBC. Secondary aims were to investigate time-to-event outcomes in control arms in later lines and to assess time-trends in aTNBC experimental and control arm outcomes. Results: We included 33 trials published between June 2013-Feb 2021. The mOS of control arms in 1L was 18.7mo (range 12.6-22.8) across 5 trials with single agent (nab-) paclitaxel [(n)P], and 18.1mo (similar range) for 7 trials including combination regimens (Table). The mPFS of control arms in 1L was 4.9mo (range 3.8-5.6) across 5 trials with single-agent (n)P, and 5.6mo (range 3.8-6.1) across 8 trials including combination regimens. Control arm mOS was 13.1mo (range 9.4-17.4) for 3 trials in first and second line (1/2L) and 8.7mo (range 6.7-10.8) across 5 trials in 2L and beyond. R2 for the mOS best-fit lines across control and experimental arms over time was 0.09, 0.01 and 0.04 for 1L, 1/2L and 2L and beyond, respectively. Conclusions: Median time-to-event outcomes of control arms in 1L aTNBC show considerable heterogeneity, even among trials with comparable regimens and large sample sizes. Disregarding important prognostic factors at stratification can lead to imbalances between arms, which may jeopardize accurate sample size calculations, trial results and interpretation. Optimizing stratification and assumptions for power calculations is of utmost importance in aTNBC and beyond. A digitized trial results repository with precisely defined patient populations and treatment settings could improve accuracy of assumptions during clinical trial design.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document