The authors describe some recent developments in statistical methods and practice in oncology drug development from an academic and an industry perspective. Many adaptive designs were pioneered in oncology, and oncology is still at the forefront of novel methods to enable better and faster go/no-go decision making while controlling the cost.
KornELMidthuneDChenTTRubinsteinLVChristianMCSimonRM. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med. 1994;13:1799–1806.
2.
O’QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46:33–48.
3.
BabbJRogatkoAZacksS. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17:1103–1120.
4.
KornEL. Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:977–978.
5.
HoeringALebilancMCrowleyJ. Seamless phase I-II trial design for assessing toxicity and efficacy for targeted agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:640–646.
6.
IvanovaAKimS. Dose-finding for binary ordinal and continuous outcomes with monotone objective function: a unified approach. Biometrics. 2009;65:307–315.
7.
CheungYKChappellR. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000;56:1177–1182.
8.
IvanovaAFlournoyNChungY. Cumulative cohort design for dose-finding. J Stat Plan Inference. 2007;137:2316–2317.
9.
BekeleBNJiYShenYThallPF. Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks. Biostatistics. 2008;9:442–457.
10.
FosterMCAminCVoorheesPM. A phase I, dose escalation study of clofarabine in combination with fractionated gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(7):1331–1337.
11.
ThallPMillikanRMuellerPLeeS. Dose finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics. 2003;59:487–496.
12.
IvanovaAWangK. A nonparametric approach to the design and analysis of two-dimensional dose-finding trials. Stat Med. 2004;23:1861–1870.
13.
WangKIvanovaA. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics. 2005;61:217–222.
14.
ConawayMRDunbarSPeddadaSD. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics. 2004;60:661–669.
15.
YuanYYinG. Sequential continual reassessment method for two-dimensional dose finding. Stat Med. 2008;27:5664–5678.
16.
BraunTMWangS. A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of cancer therapeutic agents. Biometrics. 2010;66:805–812.
17.
BekeleBNThallFT. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. J Am Stat Assoc. 2004;99:26–35.
18.
YuanZChappellRBaileyH. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics. 2007;63:173–179.
19.
ChenZKrailoMDAzenSPTighiouartM. A novel toxicity scoring system treating toxicity response as a quasi-continuous variable in phase I clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31:473–482.
20.
RafteryLTepperJEGoldbergRM. A two-cohort phase 1 study of weekly oxaliplatin and gemcitabine, then oxaliplatin, gemcitabine, and erlotinib during radiotherapy for unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(3):250–253.
21.
O’NeilBHRafteryLCalvoBF. A phase I study of bortezomib in combination with standard 5-fluorouracil and external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic rectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2010;9(2):119–125.
22.
IvanovaA. Escalation, up-and-down and A+B designs for dose-finding trials. Stat Med. 2006; 25:3668–3678.
23.
MickRCrowleyJJCarrollRJ. Phase II clinical trial design for noncytotoxic anticancer agents for which time to disease progression is the primary endpoint. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:343–359.
SeymourLIvySPSargentD. The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1764–1769.
26.
SimonR. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:1–10.
27.
GehanE. The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis. 1961;13:346–353.
28.
ThezenasSDuffourJCulineSKramarA. Five-year change in statistical designs of phase II trials published in leading cancer journals. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1244–1249.
29.
JungSHLeeTKimKMGeorgeSL. Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2004;23:561–569.
30.
ChengT. Optimal three-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2007;16:2701–2711.
31.
FlemingTR. One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics. 1982;38:143–151.
32.
LuYJinHLambornKR. A design of phase II cancer trials using total and complete response endpoints. Stat Med. 2005;24:3155–3170.
33.
IvanovaAMonacoJStinchcombeT. Efficient designs for phase II oncology trials with ordinal outcome. Stat Interface. 2012;5:463–469.
34.
KepnerJL. On group sequential designs comparing two binomial proportions. J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20(1):145–159.
35.
ZeeBMelnychukDDanceyJEisenhauerE. Multinomial phase II cancer trials incorporating response and early progression. J Biopharm Stat. 1999;9:351–363.
36.
SunLZChenCPatelK. Optimal two-stage randomized multinomial designs for phase II oncology trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:485–493.
37.
IvanovaAQaqishBFSchellMJ. Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase I trials in oncology. Biometrics. 2005;61:540–545.
38.
PocockSJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977;64:191–199.
39.
GellerNLFollmannDFLeiferESCarterSL. Design of early trials in peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a hybrid frequentist-Bayesian approach. In: GellerNL, ed. Advances in Clinical Trial Biostatistics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2005:40–52.
40.
JohnsonVECookJD. Bayesian design of single-arm phase II clinical trials with continuous monitoring. Clin Trials. 2009;6:217–226.
BretzFKoenigFBrannathWGlimmEPoschM. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med. 2009;28:1181–1217.
48.
BretzFSchmidliHKonigF. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: general concepts. Biom J. 2006;48:623–634.
49.
StallardN. A confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trial design incorporating short-term endpoint information. Stat Med. 2010;29:959–971.
50.
ConroyTDesseigneFYchouM. Folfirinox versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–1825.
51.
BookmanMABradyMFMcGuireWP. Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a phase III trial of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1419–1425.
RogatkoASchoeneckDJonasWTighiouartMKhuriFRPorterA. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(31):4982–4986.
54.
Le TourneauCLeeJJSiuL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(10):708–720.
55.
NeuenschwanderBBransonMGsponerT. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:2420–2439.
56.
BaileySNeuenschwanderBLairdGBransonM. A Bayesian case study in oncology phase I combination dose-finding using logistic regression with covariates. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:469–484.
57.
ThallPFLeeSJ. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(3):251–261.
58.
GoodmanSNZahurakMLPiantadosiS. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med. 1995;14:1149–1161.
59.
BoothCMCalvertAHGiacconeGLobbezooMWSeymourEAEisenhauerEA. Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):19–24.
60.
BoothCMCalvertAHGiacconeGLobbezooMWEisenhauerLKSeymourLK. Design and conduct of phase II studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):25–29.
61.
HerndonJE. A design alternative for two-stage, phase II, multicenter cancer clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:440–450.
62.
MugglinA.Case Study: Using Historical Information to Augment Prospective Control. Washington, DC:FDA/Industry Workshop; 2008.
63.
StallardNThallPFWhiteheadJ. Decision theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Biometrics. 1999;55:971–977.
64.
DingMRosnerGLMüllerP. Bayesian optimal design for phase II screening trials. Biometrics. 2008;64:886–894.
65.
ZhouXLiuSKimESHerbstRSLeeJJ. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer—a step toward personalized medicine. Clinical Trials. 2008;5(3):181–193.
66.
EssermanLJBerryDACheangMC. Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132(3):1049–1062.
67.
BarkerADSigmanCCKelloffGJ. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86(1):97–100.
