Premium
An optimal three‐stage design for phase II clinical trials
Author(s) -
Ensign Lisa Garnsey,
Gehan Edmund A.,
Kamen Douglas S.,
Thall Peter F.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
statistics in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.996
H-Index - 183
eISSN - 1097-0258
pISSN - 0277-6715
DOI - 10.1002/sim.4780131704
Subject(s) - sample size determination , optimal design , statistical power , stage (stratigraphy) , statistics , sequential analysis , constraint (computer aided design) , computer science , design of experiments , mathematics , mathematical optimization , paleontology , geometry , biology
A phase II clinical trial in cancer therapeutics is usually a single‐arm study to determine whether an experimental treatment ( E ) holds sufficient promise to warrant further testing. When the criterion of treatment efficacy is a binary endpoint (response/no response) with probability of response p , we propose a three‐stage optimal design for testing H 0 : p ≤ p 0 versus H 1 : p ≥ p 1 , where p 1 and p 0 are response rates such that E does or does not merit further testing at given levels of statistical significance (α) and power (1 − β). The proposed design is essentially a combination of earlier proposals by Gehan and Simon. The design stops with rejection of H 1 at stage 1 when there is an initial moderately long run of consecutive treatment failures; otherwise there is continuation to stage 2 and (possibly) stage 3 which have decision rules analogous to those in stages 1 and 2 of Simon's design. Thus, rejection of H 1 is possible at any stage, but acceptance only at the final stage. The design is optimal in the sense that expected sample size is minimized when p = p 0 , subject to the practical constraint that the minimum stage 1 sample size is at least 5. The proposed design has greatest utility when the true response rate of E is small, it is desirable to stop early if there is a moderately long run of early treatment failures, and it is practical to implement a three‐stage design. Compared to Simon's optimal two‐stage design, the optimal three‐stage design has the following features: stage 1 is the same size or smaller and has the possibility of stopping earlier when 0 successes are observed; the expected sample size under the null hypothesis is smaller; stages 1 and 2 generally have more patients than stage 1 of the two‐stage design, but a higher probability of early termination under H 0 ; and the total sample size and criteria for rejection of H 1 at stage 3 are similar to the corresponding values at the end of stage 2 in the two‐stage optimal design.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom