Selecting promising treatments in randomized phase ii cancer trials with an active control

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 494-508

  Cheung, Ying Kuen ^a  

^a Department of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Noninferiority test; Probability of correct selection; Sample size re estimation; Sequential elimination; Sequential probability ratio test; Symmetric boundaries; Type I error

Indexed keywords

ERLOTINIB; SORAFENIB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BENZENESULFONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; PYRIDINE DERIVATIVE; QUINAZOLINE DERIVATIVE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOASSAY; CONTROL GROUP; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BENZENESULFONATES; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CONTROL GROUPS; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILITY; PYRIDINES; QUINAZOLINES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67651067879     PISSN: 10543406     EISSN: 15205711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10543400902802425     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bischoff, W., Miller, F. (2005). Adaptive two-stage test procedures to find the best treatment in clinical trials. Biometrika 92:197-212.
2. Cheung, Y. K. (2008). Simple sequential boundaries for treatment selection in multi-armed randomized clinical trials with a control. Biometrics 64:940-949.
3. Cheung, Y. K., Gordon, P. H., Levin, B. (2006). Selecting promising ALS therapies in clinical trials. Neurology 67:1748-1751.
4. Hochberg, Y., Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: Wiley.
5. Jung, S. H. (2008). Randomized Phase II trials with a prospective control. Stat. Med. 27:568-583.
6. Karrison, T. G., Maitland, M. L., Stadler, W. M., Ratain, M. J. (2007). Design of Phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: Application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99:1455-1461.
7. Leu, C.-S., Levin, B. (1999a). On the probability of correct selection in the Levin-Robbins sequential elimination procedure. Statistica Sinica 9:879-891.
8. Leu, C.-S., Levin, B. (1999b). Proof of a lower bound formula for the expected reward in the Levin-Robbins sequential elimination procedure. Sequential Analysis 18:81-105.
9. Levin, B., Robbins, H. (1981). Selecting the highest probability in binomial or multinomial trials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 78:4663-4666.
10. Michaelis, L. C., Ratain, M. J. (2006). Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: From black and white to shades of grey. Nature Reviews Cancer 6:409-414.
11. Robbins, H., Siegmund, D. O. (1974). Sequential tests involving two populations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69:132-139.
12. Schaid, D. J., Wieand, S., Therneau, T. M. (1990). Optimal two-stage screening designs for survival comparisons. Biometrika 77:507-513.
13. Simon, R., Wittes, R. E., Ellenberg, S. S. (1985). Randomized Phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treatment Reports 69:1375-1381.
14. Slepian, D. (1962). The one-sided barrier problem for normal noise. Bell System Tech. J. 41:463-501.
15. Taylor, J. M. G., Braun, T. M., Li, Z. (2006). Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: Relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design. Clinical Trial 3:335-348.
16. Thall, P. F., Simon, R., Ellenberg, S. S. (1988). Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials. Biometrika 75:303-310.