Evaluating and utilizing probability of study success in clinical development

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 407-413

  Wang, Yanping ^a   Fu, Haoda ^a   Kulkarni, Pandurang ^a   Kaiser, Christopher ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST METASTASIS; CLINICAL STUDY; COLON CANCER; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SOLID TUMOR; SURVIVAL TIME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG DISCOVERY; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84878262858     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774513478229     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: Success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 ; 87: 272-77
2. SutterSLamottaL. Cancer drugs have worst phase III track record. Intern Med News2011. Available at: /www.ehospitalistnews.comindex.php?id=779&tx- ttnews%5Btt-news%5D=41774&cHash=513e57ba8d489ddb10a0f95554b7f284
3. O'Hagan A, Stevens J, Campbell MJ. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2005 ; 4: 187-201
4. Chuang-Stein C. Sample size and the probability of a successful trial. Pharm Stat. 2006 ; 5: 305-09
5. Dmitrienko A, Molenberghs G, Chuang-Stein C, Offen W Analysis of Clinical Trials Using SAS: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc ; 2005: 248-61.
6. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. Chichester: Wiley ; 2004 :
7. KingM. Evaluating probability of success in oncology clinical trials. In Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium, 2009. Available at: http://www.bassconference.org/PDFs/Bass%202009%20Martin%20King.pdf
8. Sherrill B, Amonkar M, Wu Y, et al. Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008 ; 99: 1572-78
9. Johnson KR, Ringland C, Stokes BJ, et al. Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006 ; 7: 741-46
10. Burzykowski T, Buyse M. Surrogate threshold effect: An alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006 ; 5: 173-86
11. BuyseMESquiffletPLaporteS. Prediction of survival benefits from progression-free survival in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer: Evidence from a pooled analysis of 2,838 patients randomized in 7 trials. In American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, 2008. Available at: http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst-detail- view&confID=55&abstractID=32835
12. Hong S, Shi L. Predictive power to assist phase 3 go/no go decision based on phase 2 data on a different endpoint. Stat Med. 2011 ;:
13. America's Pharmaceutical Research Companies. PhRMA report on medicines in development for cancer, 2011. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/ files/1000/medicinesindevelopmentcancer2011-0.pdf
14. Chuang-Stein C, Kirby S, French J, et al. A quantitative approach for making go/no-go decisions in drug development. Drug Inf J. 2011 ; 45: 187-202
15. Fu H, Wang Y, Liu J, Kulkarni PM, Melemed A. Joint modeling of progression-free survival and overall survival by a Bayesian normal induced copula estimation model. Stat Med. 2012 ;: