In this paper, the authors describe developments in adaptive design methodology and discuss implementation strategies and operational challenges in early-phase adaptive clinical trials. The BATTLE trial—the first completed biomarker-based Bayesian adaptive randomized study in lung cancer—is presented as a case study to illustrate main ideas and share learnings.
AshbyD. Bayesian statistics in medicine: a 25 year review. Stat Med. 2006;25(21):3589–3631.
2.
GrieveAP. 25 years of Bayesian methods in the pharmaceutical industry: a personal, statistical bummel. Pharm Stat. 2007;6(4):261–281.
3.
ChevretS. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only?Stat Med. 2012;31(11-12):1002–1013.
4.
LeeJJChuCT. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat Med. 2012;31(25):2955–2972.
5.
ZhouXLiuSKimESHerbstRSLeeJJ. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer: a step toward personalized medicine. Clin Trials. 2008;5(3):463–467.
6.
KimESHerbsRSWistubaII. The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1(1):44–53.
7.
BarkerADSigmanCCKelloffGJ. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86(1):97–100.
8.
GaydosBAndersonKBerryD. Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Drug Inf J. 2009;43:539–556.
9.
HeWKuznetsovaOHarmerM. Practical considerations and strategies for executing adaptive clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2012;46:160–174.
10.
DragalinV. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:425–435.
ThallPSimonREsteyE. Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Stat Med. 1995;14:357–379.
25.
LeeJLiuD. A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2008;5:93–106.
26.
WetherillG. Sequential estimation of quantal response curves. J Royal Stat Soc B. 1963;25:1–48.
27.
LaiTLRobbinsH. Adaptive design in regression and control. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978;75:586–587.
28.
O’QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics.1990;46:33–48.
29.
LiZDurhamSDFlournoyN. An adaptive design for maximization of a contingent binary response. In FlournoyNRosenbergerWF, eds. Adaptive Designs. Beachwood, OH: Institute of Mathematical Statistics; 1995:179–196.
30.
ThallPFCookJD. Dose-finding based on efficacy? Toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics. 2004;60(3):684–693.
31.
AzrielD. A note on the robustness of the continual reassessment method. Stat Prob Lett. 2012;82:902–906.
32.
AzrielDMandelMRinottY. The treatment versus experimentation dilemma in dose finding studies. J Stat Plan Infer. 2011;141(8):2759–2768.
33.
BozinAZarropM. Self-tuning extremum optimizer convergence and robustness. ECC. 1991;91:672–677.
34.
ChangHHYingZ. Nonlinear sequential designs for logistic item response theory models with applications to computerized adaptive tests. Annals Stat. 2009;37(3):1466–1488.
35.
GhoshMMukhopadhyayNSenPK. Sequential Estimation. New York, NY: Wiley; 1997.
36.
LaiTLRobbinsH. Iterated least squares in multiperiod control. Adv Appl Math. 1982;3(1):50–73.
37.
OronAPAzrielDHoffPD. Dose-finding designs: the role of convergence properties [published online October 27, 2011]. Int J Biostat.
38.
PronzatoL. Adaptive optimization and D-optimum experimental design. Annals Stat. 2000;28(6):1743–1761.
39.
GooleyTAMartinPJLloydDFPettingerM. Simulation as a design tool for phase I/II clinical trials: an example from bone marrow transplantation. Control Clin Trials. 1994;15:450–460.
40.
FanSKChalonerK. Optimal designs and limiting optimal designs for a trinomial response. J Stat Plan Infer. 2004;126(1):347–360.
41.
RabieHFlournoyN. Optimal designs for contingent responses models. In: Di BucchianicoALuterHWynnHP, eds. mODa 7: Advances in Model-Oriented Design and Analysis. Heidelberg, germany: Physical-Verlag; 2004:133–142.
42.
DragalinVFedorovV. Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity response. J Stat Plan Infer. 2006;136:1800–1823.
43.
FedorovVLeonovS. Optimal Design for Nonlinear Response Models. New York, NY: CRC Press Inc; 2013.
44.
ThallPF. Bayesian models and decision algorithms for complex early phase clinical trials. Stat Sci. 2010;25(2):227–244.
45.
DragalinVFedorovVWuY. Two-stage design for dose-finding that accounts for both efficacy and safety. Stat Med. 2008;27:5156–5176.
46.
FedorovVWuYZhangR. Optimal dose-finding designs with correlated continuous and discrete responses. Stat Med. 2012;31:217–234.
47.
BerryD. Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective. London, England: Duxbury Press; 1996.
48.
BerryD. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:27–36.
49.
LinYShihW. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2001;2(2):203–215.
50.
BabbJRogatkoAZacksS. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17:1103–1120.
51.
ChevretS. Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments. New York, NY: Wiley; 2006.
52.
CheungYK. Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. New York, NY: Chapman. & Hall; 2011.
53.
WangSO’NeillRHungH. Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset. Pharmaceutical Statistics. 2007;6:227–244.
54.
LipkovichIDmitrienkoADenneJEnasG. Subgroup identification based on differential effect search (SIDES): a recursive partitioning method for establishing response to treatment in patient subpopulations. Stat Med. 2011;30:2601–2621.
55.
LipkovichIDmitrienkoA. Strategies for identifying predictive biomarkers and subgroups with enhanced treatment effect in clinical trials using SIDES. J Biopharm Stat. In press.
56.
StallardN. A confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trial design incorporating short-term endpoint information. Stat Med. 2010;29:959–971.
57.
JenkinsMStoneAJennisonC. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:347–356.
58.
FriedeTParsonsNStallardN. A conditional error function approach for subgroup selection in adaptive clinical trials. Stat Med. 2012;31(30):4309–4320.
59.
LaraPNRedmanMWKellyKM. Disease control rate at 8 weeks predicts clinical benefit in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from Southwest Oncology Group randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):463–467.
60.
SequistLVMuzikanskyAEngelmanJA. A new BATTLE in the evolving war on cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1(1):14–16.
61.
RubinEHAndersonKMGauseCK. The BATTLE trial: a bold step toward improving the efficiency of biomarker-based drug development. Cancer Discov. 2011:1(1):17–20.
62.
TamALKimESLeeJJ. Feasibility of image-guided transthoracic core-needle biopsy in the BATTLE lung trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(4):436–442.
63.
LeeJJChenNYinG. Worth adapting? Revisiting the usefulness of outcome-adaptive randomization. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(17):4498–4507.
PrintzC. BATTLE to personalize lung cancer treatment: novel clinical trial design and tissue gathering procedures drive biomarker discovery. Cancer. 2010;116(14):3307–3308.
66.
GoldKAKimESLeeJJWistubaIIFarhangfarCJHongWK. The BATTLE to personalize lung cancer prevention through reverse migration. Cancer Prev Res. 2011;4(7):962–972.
RubinEHGillilandDG. Drug development and clinical trials: the path to an approved cancer drug. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(4):215–222.
69.
KelloffGJSigmanCC. Cancer biomarkers: selecting the right drug for the right patient. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):201–214.
70.
BerryDAHerbstRSRubinEH. Reports from the 2010 clinical and translational cancer research think tank meeting: design strategies for personalized therapy trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(3):638–644.
BornkampBBretzFDmitrienkoA. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:965–995.
74.
PinheiroJSaxRAntonijevicZ. Adaptive and model-based dose ranging trials: quantitative evaluation and recommendations. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):435–454.
