A two-stage phase II trial design utilizing both primary and secondary endpoints

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 88-92

  Lin, Xun ^a   Allred, Randy ^a   Andrews, Glen ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Family wise statistical power; Family wise type 1 error; Primary endpoint; Secondary endpoint; Simulations; Two stage design

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE CONTROL; DRUG RESPONSE; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PARAMETRIC TEST; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; POWER ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BIOASSAY; METHODOLOGY;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 46449104214     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.255     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989; 10: 1-10.
2. Habita C et al. A Simon two stage study of CoFactor (CO) with 5-fluorouracil (FU) as first line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The 7th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, Spain, June 2005.
3. Rossi J et al. A phase I/II study of TACI-Ig to neutralize APRIL and BLyS in patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma or active previously-treated Waldenström's macroglobulinemia. Blood 2005; 106(11), Abstract 2566.
4. Case D, Morgan T. Design of phase II cancer trials evaluating survival probabilities. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3:6.
5. Therasse P et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000; 92(3): 205-216.
6. Armitage P. Sequential tests in prophylactic and therapeutic trials. Quarterly Journal of Medicine 1954; 23:255-274.
7. Armitage P. Sequential methods in clinical trials. American Journal of Public Health 1958; 48: 1395-1402.
8. Bross I. Sequential medical plans. Biometrics 1952; 8:188-205.
9. Bross I. Sequential clinical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1958; 8:349-365.
10. Elfring GL, Schultz JR. Group sequential designs for clinical trials. Biometrics 1973; 29:471477.
11. Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977; 64:191-199.
12. Gehan E. The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1961; 13:346-353.
13. Gehan E. Update on planning of phase II clinical trials. Drugs under Experimental and Clinical Research 1986; 12:43-50.
14. Jennison C, Turnbull B. Confidence intervals for a binomial parameter following a multistage test with application to MIL-STD 105D and medical trials. Technometrics 1983; 25:49-58.
15. Chang M, O'Brien P. Confidence intervals following group sequential tests. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7:18-26.
16. Panageas K. An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete and partial response information separately. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23:367-379.
17. Lin S, Chen T. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II trials with differentiation of complete and partial responses. Communications in Statistics, Part A - Theory and Methods 1998; 29:923-940.
18. Lu Y et al. A design of phase II cancer trials using total and complete response endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:3155-3170.