More multiarm randomised trials of superiority are needed

The Lancet

Volumn 384, Issue 9940, 2014, Pages 283-284

  Parmar, Mahesh K B ^a   Carpenter, James ^a,b   Sydes, Matthew R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT PLANNING; FACTORIAL DESIGN; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROBABILITY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84904793436     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61122-3     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 203-14.
2. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Soares HP, et al. Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Int Med 2008; 168: 632-42.
3. Gan HK, You B, Pond GR, Chen EX. Assumptions of expected benefits in randomized phase III trials evaluating systemic treatments for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 590-98.
4. Cross J, Lee H, Westelinck A, Nelson J, Grudzinskas C, Peck C. Postmarketing drug dosage changes of 499 FDA-approved new molecular entities, 1980-1999. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 439-46.
5. Lisovskaja V, Burman CF. On the choice of doses for phase III clinical trials. Stat Med 2013; 32: 1661-76.
6. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Miladinovic B, et al. Treatment success in cancer: Industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2013; 8: E58711.
7. Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11: Iii, ix-105.
8. Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review. BMJ 2013; 346: F1135.
9. Hearn J, Keat N, Law K, Sharpe R. How Cancer Research UK is adapting to adaptive designs. Trials 2011; 12: A6.
10. Proschan MA, Waclawiw MA. Practical guidelines for multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 527-39.
11. Freidlin B, Korn EL, Gray R, Martin A. Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 4368-71.
12. Royston P, Parmar MKB, Qian W. Novel designs for multi-arm clinical trials with survival outcomes with an application in ovarian cancer. Stat Med 2003; 22: 2239-56.
13. Sydes MR, James ND, Mason MD, et al. Flexible trial design in practice- dropping and adding arms in STAMPEDE: A multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial. Trials 2011; 12: A3.
14. Sydes MR, Parmar MKB, James ND, et al. Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: The MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials 2009; 10: 39.