TY - JOUR
T1 - The direct assignment option as a modular design component
T2 - An example for the setting of two predefined subgroups
AU - An, Ming Wen
AU - Lu, Xin
AU - Sargent, Daniel J.
AU - Mandrekar, Sumithra J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Ming-Wen An et al.
PY - 2015/1/15
Y1 - 2015/1/15
N2 - Background. A phase II design with an option for direct assignment (stop randomization and assign all patients to experimental treatment based on interim analysis, IA) for a predefined subgroup was previously proposed. Here, we illustrate the modularity of the direct assignment option by applying it to the setting of two predefined subgroups and testing for separate subgroup main effects. Methods. We power the 2-subgroup direct assignment option design with 1 IA (DAD-1) to test for separate subgroup main effects, with assessment of power to detect an interaction in a post-hoc test. Simulations assessed the statistical properties of this design compared to the 2-subgroup balanced randomized design with 1 IA, BRD-1. Different response rates for treatment/control in subgroup 1 (0.4/0.2) and in subgroup 2 (0.1/0.2, 0.4/0.2) were considered. Results. The 2-subgroup DAD-1 preserves power and type I error rate compared to the 2-subgroup BRD-1, while exhibiting reasonable power in a post-hoc test for interaction. Conclusion. The direct assignment option is a flexible design component that can be incorporated into broader design frameworks, while maintaining desirable statistical properties, clinical appeal, and logistical simplicity.
AB - Background. A phase II design with an option for direct assignment (stop randomization and assign all patients to experimental treatment based on interim analysis, IA) for a predefined subgroup was previously proposed. Here, we illustrate the modularity of the direct assignment option by applying it to the setting of two predefined subgroups and testing for separate subgroup main effects. Methods. We power the 2-subgroup direct assignment option design with 1 IA (DAD-1) to test for separate subgroup main effects, with assessment of power to detect an interaction in a post-hoc test. Simulations assessed the statistical properties of this design compared to the 2-subgroup balanced randomized design with 1 IA, BRD-1. Different response rates for treatment/control in subgroup 1 (0.4/0.2) and in subgroup 2 (0.1/0.2, 0.4/0.2) were considered. Results. The 2-subgroup DAD-1 preserves power and type I error rate compared to the 2-subgroup BRD-1, while exhibiting reasonable power in a post-hoc test for interaction. Conclusion. The direct assignment option is a flexible design component that can be incorporated into broader design frameworks, while maintaining desirable statistical properties, clinical appeal, and logistical simplicity.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947649203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947649203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2015/210817
DO - 10.1155/2015/210817
M3 - Article
C2 - 25649690
AN - SCOPUS:84947649203
SN - 1748-670X
VL - 2015
JO - Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
JF - Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
M1 - 210817
ER -