Two-stage designs for phase II cancer trials with ordinal responses

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 896-904

  Stallard, Nigel ^a   Cockey, Louise ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b HOFFMANN LA ROCHE INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Likelihood ratio test; Multi stage trial; Multivariate outcome; Ordinal outcome; Phase II clinical trial; Stopping rule

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; RESPONSE VARIABLE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 53649088607     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Schoenfeld D. Statistical considerations for pilot studies. International Journal of Radiation Oncology. Biol Phys 6 (1980) 371-374
2. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 1-10
3. Shuster J. Optimal two-stage designs for single arm phase II cancer trials. J Biopharm Stat 12 (2002) 39-51
4. Therasse P., Arbuck S., Eisenhauer E., et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (2000) 205-216
5. Lin S.P., and Chen T.T. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials with differentiation of complete and partial responses. Commun Stat - Theory Methods 29 (2000) 923-940
6. Zee B., Melnychuk D., Dancey J., and Eisenhauer E. Multinomial phase II cancer trials incorporating response and early progression. J Biopharm Stat 9 (1999) 351-363
7. Robertson J.F.R., Willshe P.C., Cheung K.L., and Blamey R.W. The clinical relevance of static disease (no change) category for 6 months on endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 33 (1997) 1774-1779
8. Dent S., Zee B., Dancey J., Hanauske A., Wanders J., and Eisenhauer E. Application of a new multinomial phase II stopping rule using response and early progression. J Clin Oncol 19 (2001) 785-791
9. Lu Y., Jin H., and Lamborn K.R. A design of phase II cancer trials using total and complete response endpoints. Stat Med 24 (2005) 3155-3170
10. Panageas K.S., Smith A., Gönen M., and Chapman P.B. An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete and partial response information separately. Control Clin Trials 23 (2002) 367-379
11. Stallard N., Thall P.F., and Whitehead J. Decision theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Biometrics 55 (1999) 971-977
12. McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. J R Stat Soc, Ser B 42 (1980) 109-142
13. Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials (1997), Wiley, Chichester
14. Bryant J., and Day R. Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 51 (1995) 1372-1383
15. Conaway M.R., and Petroni G.R. Bivariate sequential designs for phase II trials. Biometrics 51 (1995) 656-664
16. Conaway M.R., and Petroni G.R. Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity. Biometrics 52 (1996) 1375-1386
17. Jennison C., and Turnbull B.W. Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. Biometrics 49 (1993) 741-752