Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: Current status and future directions

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 19, 2005, Pages 4450-4457

  Lee, J Jack ^a   Feng, Lei ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

CANCER; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT PLANNING; BAYES THEOREM; EVALUATION; FORECASTING; NEOPLASM; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; FORECASTING; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS;

EID: 22344447501     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.197     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Mariani L, Marubini E: Design and analysis of phase II cancer trials: A review of statistical methods and guidelines for medical researchers, Int Stat Rev 64:61-88, 1996
2. Thall PF, Simon RM: Recent developments in the design of phase II clinical trials, in Thall PF (ed): Recent Advances in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis. Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995, pp 49-71
3. Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, et al: Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 21:830-835, 2003
4. Cassileth BR: Clinical trials: Time for action. J Clin Oncol 21:765-766, 2003
5. Von Hoff DD: There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs: Twenty-first Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Clin Cancer Res 4:1079-1086, 1998
6. Gehan EA: The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis 13:346-353, 1961
7. Simon R: Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989
8. Fleming TR: One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38:143-151, 1982
9. Ensign LG, Gehan EA, Kamen DS, et al: An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 13:1727-1736, 1994
10. Chen TT: Optimal three-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 16:2701-2711, 1997
11. Thall PF, Simon R: Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics 50:337-349, 1994
12. Thall PF, Simon R: A Bayesian approach to establishing sample size and monitoring criteria for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 15:463-481, 1994
13. Leung S, Heng-Yan D, Wang Y-G: A Bayesian decision approach for sample size determination in phase II trials. Biometrics 57:309-312, 2001
14. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS: Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1375-1381, 1985
15. Liu PY, LeBlanc M, Desai M: False positive rates of randomized phase II designs. Control Clin Trials 20:343-352, 1999
16. Brizel DM, Wasserman TH, Henke M, et al: Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3339-3345, 2000
17. GOSS PE, Winer EP, Tannock IF, et al: Randomized phase III trial comparing the new potent and selective third-generation aromatase inhibitor vorozole with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 17:52-63, 1999
18. Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Paesmans M, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 83:1128-1135, 2000
19. Cornelia P, Frasci G, Panza N, et al: Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Interim analysis of a phase III trial of the southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 18:1451-1457, 2000
20. Vanhoefer U, Rougier P, Wilke H, et al: Final results of a randomized phase III trial of sequential high-dose methotrexate, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin versus etoposide, leucovorin, and fluorouracil versus infusional fluorouracil and cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer: A trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 18:2648-2657, 2000
21. Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:4285-4291, 2002
22. Steinberg SM, Venzon DJ: Early selection in a randomized phase II clinical trial. Stat Med 21:1711-1726, 2002
23. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd ed. New York, NY, Springer, 1998, pp 61-81
24. Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW, et al: Stratified randomization for clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 52:1289-1290, 1999
25. Pocock SJ, Simon R: Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 31:103-115, 1975
26. Scott NW, McPherson GC, Ramsay CR, et al: The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: A review. Control Clin Trials 23:662-674, 2002
27. Roberts TG Jr, Lynch TJ Jr, Chabner BA: The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: Unraveling the "go or no go" decision. J Clin Oncol 21:3683-3695, 2003
28. Blakey DC: Anti-cancer drug discovery and development summit. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 12:1577-1582, 2003
29. Rosner GL, Stadler W, Ratain MJ: Randomized discontinuation design: Application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol 20:4478-4484, 2002
30. Simon R, Maitournam A: Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 10:6759-6763, 2004
31. Lee JJ, Lieberman R, Sloan JA, et al: Design considerations for efficient prostate cancer chemoprevention trials. Urology 57:206-212, 2001 (4 Suppl 1)
32. Johns D, Andersen JS: Use of predictive probabilities in phase II and phase III clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 9:67-69, 1999
33. Berry DA, Eick SG: Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: A decision analysis. Stat Med 14:231-246, 1995
34. Thall PF, Wathen JK, Bekele BN, et al: Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to phase II trials in diseases with multiple subtypes. Stat Med 22:763-780, 2003
35. Inoue LY, Thall PF, Berry DA: Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III. Biometrics 58:823-831, 2002
36. Stallard N, Thall PF, Whitehead J: Decision theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Biometrics 55:971-977, 1999
37. Karrison TG, Huo D, Chappell R: A group sequential, response adaptive design for randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 24:506-522, 2003
38. Scher HI, Heller G: Picking the winners in a sea of plenty. Clin Cancer Res 8:400-404, 2002
39. Kramar A, Potvin D, Hill C: Multistage designs for phase II clinical trials: Statistical issues in cancer research. Br J Cancer 74:1317-1320, 1996
40. Mariani L, Marubini E: Content and quality of currently published phase II cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 18:429-436, 2000
41. Perrons F, Di Maio M, De Maio E, et al: Statistical design in phase II clinical trials and its application in breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 4:305-311, 2003
42. Altman DG: Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287:2765-2767, 2002