Adaptive designs are gaining popularity in early phase clinical trials because they enable investigators to change the course of a study in response to accumulating data. We propose a novel design to simultaneously monitor several endpoints. These include efficacy, futility, toxicity and other outcomes in early phase, single-arm studies. We construct a recursive relationship to compute the exact probabilities of stopping for any combination of endpoints without the need for simulation, given pre-specified decision rules. The proposed design is flexible in the number and timing of interim analyses. A R Shiny app with user-friendly web interface has been created to facilitate the implementation of the proposed design.
RubinsteinL.Phase II design: history and evolution. Chin Clin Oncol2014;
3: 48.
2.
IasonosAO’QuigleyJ. Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol2013;
31: 4014.
3.
TheoretMRPai-ScherfLHChukMK, et al. Expansion cohorts in first-in-human solid tumor oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 4545–4551.
4.
ManjiABranaIAmirE, et al.
Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials.J Clin Oncol2013;
31: 4260–4267.
5.
BoonstraPSShenJTaylorJMG, et al.
A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst2015;
107: dju429. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju429.
6.
JungSHLeeTKimK, et al.
Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials.Stat Med2004;
23: 561–569.
7.
BryantJDayR.Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics1995; 52: 1372–1383.
8.
ManderAThompsonS.Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase ii cancer clinical trials.Contemporary Clin Trials2010;
31: 572–578.
9.
ChenCMChiY.Curtailed two-stage designs with two dependent binary endpoints.Pharmaceut Stat2012;
11: 57–62.
10.
LiSJinHChenW.Two-stage phase ii trials with early stopping for effectiveness and safety as well as ineffectiveness or harm. Commun Stat-Theory Meth2018;
47: 5626–5638.
11.
YinHWangWZhangZ.On construction of single-arm two-stage designs with consideration of both response and toxicity. Biometr J2019;
61: 1462–1476.
12.
ChenNLeeJJ.Optimal continuous-monitoring design of single-arm phase ii trial based on the simulated annealing method. Contemporary Clin Trials2013;
35: 170–178.
13.
LawMGraylingMJManderAP. Optimal curtailed designs for single arm phase II clinical trials. arXiv preprint. 2019; arXiv:1909.03017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.03017.
14.
IvanovaAQaqishBFSchellMJ.Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase II trials in oncology.Biometrics2005;
61: 540–545.
15.
WaldA.Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann Math Stat1945;
16: 117–186.
LeeJJLiuDD.A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials.Clin Trial2008;
5: 93–106.
18.
YinGChenNJack LeeJ. Phase II trial design with bayesian adaptive randomization and predictive probability. J Royal Stat Soc: Ser C (Appl Stat)2012;
61: 219–235.
19.
ThallPFSimonRMEsteyEH.Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes.Stat Med1995;
14: 357–379.
20.
ThallPFSungHG.Some extensions and applications of a bayesian strategy for monitoring multiple outcomes in clinical trials. Stat Med1998;
17: 1563–1580.
21.
ZhouHLeeJJYuanY.Bop2: Bayesian optimal design for phase II clinical trials with simple and complex endpoints.Stat Med2017;
36: 3302–3314.
22.
LinRColemanRLYuanY.Top: time-to-event bayesian optimal phase II trial design for cancer immunotherapy. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst2020;
112: 38–45.
23.
SambuciniV.Bayesian predictive monitoring with bivariate binary outcomes in phase II clinical trials. Computat Stat Data Analys2019;
132: 18–30.
24.
TeramukaiSDaimonTZoharS.An extension of bayesian predictive sample size selection designs for monitoring efficacy and safety. Stat Med2015;
34: 3029–3039.
25.
ZhongWKoopmeinersJSCarlinBP.A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy.Stat Med2012;
31: 3885–3895.
26.
SchultzJNicholFElfringG, et al.
Multiple-stage procedures for drug screening. Biometrics1973; 29: 293–300.
27.
BrahmerJRLacchettiCSchneiderBJ, et al.
Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline.J Clin Oncol2018;
36: 1714.
HalabiSArmstrongAJSartorO, et al.
Prostate-specific antigen changes as surrogate for overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with second-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol2013;
31: 3944.
30.
DienstmannRBrañaIRodonJ, et al.
Toxicity as a biomarker of efficacy of molecular targeted therapies: focus on EGFR and VEGF inhibiting anticancer drugs.Oncologist2011;
16: 1729.
31.
ZangYLeeJJ.A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials.Stat Med2017;
36: 27–42.
