The choice of test in phase II cancer trials assessing continuous tumour shrinkage when complete responses are expected

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 909-919

  Wason, James M S ^a   Mander, Adrian P ^a  

^a MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

censored normal distribution; complete response; continuous tumour endpoint; phase II cancer trial

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER INHIBITION; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); RANK SUM TEST; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; STUDY DESIGN; TREATMENT RESPONSE; BIOASSAY; NEOPLASMS; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84948425491     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280211432192     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Lee J, Feng L,. Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4450-4457.
2. Tang H, Foster N, Grothey A, Ansell S, Goldberg R, Sargent D,. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1936-1941.
3. Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-247.
4. MacCallum R, Zhang S, Preacher K, Rucker D,. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Meth 2002; 7: 19-40.
5. Royston P, Altman D, Sauerbrei W,. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 2006; 25: 127-141.
6. Altman D, Royston P,. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 2006; 332: 1080.
7. Lavin P,. An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer Clin Trials 1981; 4: 451-457.
8. Karrison T, Maitland M, Stadler W, Ratain M,. 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. JNCI 2007; 99: 1455-1461.
9. Wason J, Mander A, Eisen T,. Reducing sample sizes in two-stage phase II cancer trials by using continuous tumour shrinkage endpoints. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 983-989.
10. Seidman A, Hudis C, Albanel J, et al. Dose-dense therapy with weekly 1-hour paclitaxel infusions in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 3353-3361.
11. Audeh M, Carmichael J, Penson R, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 245-251.
12. Park S, Yong SY, Rhee J, et al. Phase II study of a triplet regimen of S-1 combined with irinotecan and oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic gastric cancer: clinical and pharmacogenetic results. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 890-896.
13. Moller A, Pedersen K, Gothelf A, Daugaard G,. Paclitaxel, cisplatin and gemcitabine in treatment of carcinomas of unknown primary site, a phase II study. Acta Oncol 2010; 49: 423-430.
14. Panageas K, Smith A, Gonen M, Chapman P,. An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete response information separately. Controlled Clin Trials 2002; 23: 367-379.
15. Suissa S,. Binary methods for continuous outcomes: a parametric alternative. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 241-248.
16. Suissa S, Blais L,. Binary regression with continuous outcomes. Stat Med 1995; 14: 247-255.
17. Cressie N, Sheffeld L, Whitford H,. Use of the one sample t -test in the real world. J Chron Dis 1984; 37: 107-114.
18. Tobin J,. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958; 26: 24-36.
19. Cohen A,. Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated. Technometrics 1959; 1: 217-237.
20. Amemiya T,. Tobit models: a survey. J Econometrics 1984; 24: 3-61.
21. Mahmud S, Lou W, Johnston N,. A probit- log- skew-normal mixture model for repeated measures data with excess zeros, with application to a cohort study of paediatric respiratory symptoms. BMC Med Res Method 2010; 10: 55.
22. Li N, Elashoff D, Robbins W, Xun L,. A hierarchical zero-inated log-normal model for skewed responses. Stat Meth Med Res 2011; 20: 175-189.
23. Azzalini A,. A class of distributions which includes the normal ones. Scand J Stat 1985; 12: 171-178.
24. Boneau C,. The effects of violation of assumptions underlying the t test. Psychol Bull 1960; 57: 49-64.
25. Zimmerman D,. Comparative power of the student t test and Mann-Whitney u-test for unequal sample sizes and variances. J Exp Edu 1987; 55: 171-174.
26. Lachenbruch P,. Comparisons of two-part models with competitors. Stat Med 2001; 20: 1215-1234.
27. Lachenbruch P,. Analysis of data with excess zeros. Stat Meth Med Res 2002; 11: 297-302.