Randomized phase II designs

Larry Rubinstein, John Crowley, Percy Ivy, Michael Leblanc, Dan Sargent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1883-1890
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Cancer Research
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 15 2009

Fingerprint

Disease-Free Survival
Random Allocation
Sample Size
Research Personnel
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Rubinstein, L., Crowley, J., Ivy, P., Leblanc, M., & Sargent, D. (2009). Randomized phase II designs. Clinical Cancer Research, 15(6), 1883-1890. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031

Randomized phase II designs. / Rubinstein, Larry; Crowley, John; Ivy, Percy; Leblanc, Michael; Sargent, Dan.

In: Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 15, No. 6, 15.03.2009, p. 1883-1890.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rubinstein, L, Crowley, J, Ivy, P, Leblanc, M & Sargent, D 2009, 'Randomized phase II designs', Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1883-1890. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031
Rubinstein L, Crowley J, Ivy P, Leblanc M, Sargent D. Randomized phase II designs. Clinical Cancer Research. 2009 Mar 15;15(6):1883-1890. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031
Rubinstein, Larry ; Crowley, John ; Ivy, Percy ; Leblanc, Michael ; Sargent, Dan. / Randomized phase II designs. In: Clinical Cancer Research. 2009 ; Vol. 15, No. 6. pp. 1883-1890.
@article{bd5dc376ae3d4dea91d4141297bbb982,
title = "Randomized phase II designs",
abstract = "As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.",
author = "Larry Rubinstein and John Crowley and Percy Ivy and Michael Leblanc and Dan Sargent",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "1883--1890",
journal = "Clinical Cancer Research",
issn = "1078-0432",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized phase II designs

AU - Rubinstein, Larry

AU - Crowley, John

AU - Ivy, Percy

AU - Leblanc, Michael

AU - Sargent, Dan

PY - 2009/3/15

Y1 - 2009/3/15

N2 - As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.

AB - As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=63449114216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=63449114216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031

DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031

M3 - Article

C2 - 19276275

AN - SCOPUS:63449114216

VL - 15

SP - 1883

EP - 1890

JO - Clinical Cancer Research

JF - Clinical Cancer Research

SN - 1078-0432

IS - 6

ER -