Designing exploratory cancer trials using change in tumour size as primary endpoint

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 15, 2013, Pages 2544-2554

  Jaki, Thomas ^a   André, Valérie ^b   Su, Ting Li ^a   Whitehead, John ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Design; Phase II; Score statistic; Tumour size

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RANDOMIZATION; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOSTATISTICS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84879083853     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5716     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Dhani H, Tu D, Sargent DJ, Seymour L, Moore MJ. Alternate endpoints for screening Phase II studies. Clinical Cancer Research 2009; 15:1873-1882.
2. Panageas KS, Ben-Porat L, Dickler MN, Chapman PB, Schrag D. When you look matters: the effect of assessment schedule on progression-free survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007; 99:428-432.
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, Van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000; 92:205-216.
4. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther SG, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer 2009; 45:228-247.
5. Donegan WL. Tumor-related prognostic factors for breast cancer. A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 1997; 47:28-51.
6. Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, Libby D, Pasmantier M, Altorki NK. Tumor size predicts survival within stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 2003; 124:1828-1833.
7. Wang Y, Sung C, Dartois C, Ramchandani R, Booth BP, Rock R, Gobburu J. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2009; 86:167-174.
8. Lavin PT. An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer clinical trials 1981; 4:451-457.
9. Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of Phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumour size: application to a study of Sorafenib and Erlotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007; 99:1455-1461.
10. Wason JMS, Mander AP, Eisen TG. Reducing sample size in two-stage phase II cancer trials by using continuous tumour shrinkage end-points. European Journal of Cancer 2011; 47:983-989.
11. nd Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, 2003.
12. nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, 1997.
13. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 1982; 5:649-655.
14. nd Edition. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, U.K., 1997.
15. Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics 1983; 39:499-503.
16. Whitehead J, Bolland K, Valdés-Márquez E, Lihic A, Ali M, Lees K. Using historical lesion volume data in the design of a new phase II clinical trial in stroke. Stroke 2009; 40:1347-1352.