Adaptive seamless designs with interim treatment selection: A case study in oncology

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1317-1333

  Carreras, Máximo ^a   Gutjahr, Georg ^b   Brannath, Werner ^b  

^a F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adaptive seamless designs; Confidence intervals; Family wise error rate; Selection bias; Surrogate endpoints; Treatment selection

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BREAST METASTASIS; CASE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HYPOTHESIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; STOMACH CANCER; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING; BIOASSAY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DESIGN; HUMAN; METASTASIS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; STOMACH NEOPLASMS; SURVIVAL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG DESIGN; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STOMACH NEOPLASMS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84924436823     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6407     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bauer P, Brannath W. The advantages and disadvantages of adaptive designs for clinical trials. Drug Discovery Today 2004; 9:351-357.
2. Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:1181-1217.
3. Bauer P, Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:1833-1848.
4. Hommel G. Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biometrical Journal 2001; 43:581-589.
5. Posch M, Koenig F, Branson M, Brannath W, Dunger-Baldauf C, Bauer P. Testing and estimation in fexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:3697-3714.
6. Stallard N, Friede T. A group-sequential design for clinical trials with treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:6209-6227.
7. Schäfer H, Müller H. Modication of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:3741-3751.
8. Proschan MA, Hunsberger S. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics 1995; 51:1315-1324.
9. Bauer P, Posch M. Letter to be editor: modification of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:1333-1335.
10. Wassmer G. Planning and analyzing adaptive group sequential survival trials. Biometrical Journal 2006; 48:714-729.
11. Jenkins M, Stone A, Jennison C. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10:347-356.
12. König F, Brannath W, Bretz F, Posch M. Adaptive Dunnett tests for treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:1612-1625.
13. Dunnett CW. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical 1995; 50(272):1096-1121.
14. Di Scala L, Glimm E. Time-to-event analysis with treatment arm selection at interim. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30:3067-3081.
15. Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 1976; 63:655-660.
16. Hochberg Y. A Sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988; 75:800-802.
17. Dunnett CW, Tamhane AC. A step-up multiple test procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1992; 87:162-170.
18. Dmitrienko A, Offen W, Wang O, Xiao D. Gatekeeping procedures in dose-response clinical trials based on the Dunnett test. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 5(1):19-28.
19. Dmitrienko A, Offen W, Westfall P. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be signifficant. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:2387-2400.
20. Cohen A, Sackrowitz HB. Two stage conditionally unbiased estimators of the selected mean. Statistics & Probability Letters 1989; 8:273-278.
21. Shen L. An improved method of evaluationg drug effect in a multiple dose clinical trial. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:1913-1929.
22. Stallard N, Todd S. Point estimators and confidence regions for sequential trials involving selection. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2005; 135:402-419.
23. Bowden J, Glimm E. Unbiased estimation of selected treatment means in two-stage trials. Biometrical Journal 2008; 4:515-527.
24. Carreras M, Brannath W. Shrinkage estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with midtrial treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32(10):1677-1690.
25. Strassburger K, Bretz F. Compatible simultaneous lower confidence bounds for the Holm procedure and other Bonferroni-based closed tests. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:4914-4927.
26. Guilbaud O. Simultaneous Confidence Regions Corresponding to Holm's Step-Down Procedure and Other Closed-Testing Procedures. Biometrical Journal 2008; 50:678-692.
27. Nelsen RB. An Introduction to Copulas. Springer: New York, 1999. 75.4.800.
28. Putter J, Rubinstein D, 1968; On estimating the mean of a selected population. Technical Report No. 165, University of Wisconsin, Department of Statistics.