Author Correction: Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations (Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, (2019), 18, 10, (797-807), 10.1038/s41573-019-0034-3);Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 18, Issue 10, 2019, Pages 797-807

  Angus, Derek C ^ag   Alexander, Brian M ^a   Berry, Scott ^b   Buxton, Meredith ^c   Lewis, Roger ^d   Paoloni, Melissa ^c   Webb, Steven A R ^e   Arnold, Steven ^f   Barker, Anna ^g   Berry, Donald A ^h   Bonten, Marc J M ⁱ   Brophy, Mary ^j   Butler, Christopher ^k   Cloughesy, Timothy F ^d   Derde, Lennie P G ⁱ   Esserman, Laura J ^l   Ferguson, Ryan ^j   Fiore, Louis ^m   Gaffey, Sarah C ⁿ   Gaziano, J Michael ^o   Giusti, Kathy ^p   Goossens, Herman ^q   Heritier, Stephane ^e   Hyman, Bradley ^f   Krams, Michael ^r   Larholt, Kay ^s   LaVange, Lisa M ^t   Lavori, Philip ^u   Lo, Andrew W ^s   London, Alex John ^v   Manax, Victoria ^w   McArthur, Colin ^x   O’Neill, Genevieve ^e   Parmigiani, Giovanni ^y   Perlmutter, Jane ^z   Petzold, Elizabeth A ^aa   Ritchie, Craig ^ab   Rowan, Kathryn M ^ac   Seymour, Christopher W ^ag   Shapiro, Nathan I ^o   Simeone, Diane M ^ad   Smith, Bradley ^ae   Spellberg, Bradley ^af   Stern, Ariel Dora ^p   Trippa, Lorenzo ^y   Trusheim, Mark ^s   Viele, Kert ^b   Wen, Patrick Y ⁿ   Woodcock, Janet ^t   more..

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BERRY CONSULTANTS   (United States)

^c Berry Consultants   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^f MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^j VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^m BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^o HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^q UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^r JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

^s MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^t CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^u STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^v CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^w Pancreatic Cancer Action Network   (United States)

^x AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD   (New Zealand)

^y HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^z Gemini Group   (United States)

^aa DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ab UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^ac and London School of Hygiene Tropical Medicine   (United Kingdom)

^ad NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ae IQVIA   (United States)

^af UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^ag UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

8 [4 (1 AMINOCYCLOBUTYL)PHENYL] 9 PHENYL 1,2,4 TRIAZOLO[3,4 F][1,6]NAPHTHYRIDIN 3(2H) ONE; CORTICOSTEROID; MACROLIDE; NERATINIB; PEMBROLIZUMAB; PERTUZUMAB; VELIPARIB;

ADAPTATION; ADAPTIVE PLATFORM TRIAL; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL VENTILATION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMMUNITY ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA; DOCUMENTATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GLIOBLASTOMA; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL ETHICS; METASTATIC BREAST CANCER; NOMENCLATURE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTRATION; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85072790580     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41573-019-0045-0     Document Type: Erratum

References (45)

1. Bothwell, L. E., Greene, J. A., Podolsky, S. H. & Jones, D. S. Assessing the gold standard — lessons from the history of RCTs. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 2175–2181 (2016).
2. Woodcock, J. & LaVange, L. M. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 62–70 (2017).
3. Berry, S. M., Connor, J. T. & Lewis, R. J. The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. JAMA. 313, 1619–1620 (2015).
4. Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S. & Grant, J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J. R. Soc. Med. 104, 510–520 (2011).
5. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. (National Academies Press, 2001).
6. Lai, T. L., Lavori, P. W. & Tsang, K. W. Adaptive design of confirmatory trials: advances and challenges. Contemp. Clin. Trials 45, 93–102 (2015).
7. Berry, D. A. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 27–36 (2006).
8. Antoniou, M., Jorgensen, A. L. & Kolamunnage-Dona, R. Biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs in phase II and phase III: a methodological review. PLOS ONE 11, e0149803 (2016).
9. Alexander, B. M. et al. Biomarker-based adaptive trials for patients with glioblastoma—lessons from I-SPY 2. Neuro-oncology 15, 972–978 (2013).
10. Trippa, L. & Alexander, B. M. Bayesian baskets: a novel design for biomarker-based clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 681–687 (2017).
11. Berry, S. M., Reese, C. S. & Larkey, P. D. Bridging different eras in sports. J. Am. Stat. Associ. 94, 16 (1999).
12. Saville, B. R., Connor, J. T., Ayers, G. D. & Alvarez, J. The utility of Bayesian predictive probabilities for interim monitoring of clinical trials. Clin. Trials 11, 485–493 (2014).
13. Alexander, B. M. et al. Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT): a Bayesian adaptive platform trial to develop precision medicines for patients with glioblastoma. JCO Precis. Oncol. 10.1200/PO.18.00071 (2019).
14. Trippa, L. et al. Bayesian adaptive randomized trial design for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 3258–3263 (2012).
15. Hummel, J., Wang, S. & Kirkpatrick, J. Using simulation to optimize adaptive trial designs: applications in learning and confirmatory phase trials. Clin. Invest. 5, 401–413 (2015).
16. LaVange, L. M. & Sridhara, R. Innovations in breast cancer drug development—next generation oncology trials: statistical considerations in designing master protocols. FDA http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20161023010547/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM423368.pdf (2014).
17. US Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies. FDA https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm446729.pdf (2016).
18. London, A. J. Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation. J. Med. Ethics 44, 409–415 (2018).
19. Dixon, J. R. Jr. The International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guideline. Qual. Assur. 6, 65–74 (1998).
20. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. ICMJE http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (2018).
21. CONSORT. CONSORT 2010. CONSORT http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010 (2010).
22. Rugo, H. S. et al. Adaptive randomization of veliparib–carboplatin treatment in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 23–34 (2016).
23. Park, J. W. et al. Adaptive randomization of neratinib in early breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 11–22 (2016).
24. Angus, D. C. Fusing randomized trials with big data: the key to self-learning health care systems? JAMA. 314, 767–768 (2015).
25. Fiore, L. D. & Lavori, P. W. Integrating randomized comparative effectiveness research with patient care. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 2152–2158 (2016).
26. Alexander, B. M. & Cloughesy, T. F. Platform trials arrive on time for glioblastoma. Neuro-oncology 20, 723–725 (2018).
27. Stern, A. D. & Mehta, S. Adaptive platform trials: the clinical trial of the future? Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53315 (2018).
28. Alexander, B. M. et al. Brain Malignancy Steering Committee clinical trials planning workshop: report from the Targeted Therapies Working Group. Neuro-oncology 17, 180–188 (2015).
29. Das, S. & Lo, A. W. Re-inventing drug development: a case study of the I-SPY 2 breast cancer clinical trials program. Contemp. Clin. Trials 62, 168–174 (2017).
30. Fernandez, J. M., Stein, R. M. & Lo, A. W. Commercializing biomedical research through securitization techniques. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 964–975 (2012).
31. Stern, A. D., Alexander, B. M. & Chandra, A. Innovation incentives and biomarkers. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103, 34–36 (2018).
32. Korn, E. L. & Freidlin, B. Outcome—adaptive randomization: is it useful? J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 771–776 (2011).
33. Trusheim, M. R. et al. PIPELINEs: creating comparable clinical knowledge efficiently by linking trial platforms. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 100, 713–729 (2016).
34. Saville, B. R. & Berry, S. M. Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: a vision of the future. Clin. Trials 13, 358–366 (2016).
35. Steuer, C. E. et al. Innovative clinical trials: the LUNG-MAP study. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 97, 488–491 (2015).
36. National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. NCI-MATCH Trial (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice). NIH http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials/nci-supported/nci-match (updated 9 Apr 2019).
37. Lewis, R. J. et al. Rationale and design of an adaptive phase 2b/3 clinical trial of selepressin for adults in septic shock. Selepressin Evaluation Programme for sepsis-induced shock-adaptive clinical trial. Ann. Am. Thorac Soc. 15, 250–257 (2018).
38. Barker, A. D. et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 97–100 (2009).
39. Cortazar, P. et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384, 164–172 (2014).
40. The I-SPY Trials. T-DM1 (Kadcyla) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) show promise for women with HER2-positive breast cancer. The I-SPY Trials https://www.ispytrials.org/newsitems/2016-tdm1-pertuzumab-graduation-press-release (2016).
41. The I-SPY Trials. Merck & Co. MK-2206 ‘graduates’ from I-SPY2. The I-SPY Trials https://www.ispytrials.org/newsitems/2015-mk2206-graduation-press-release (2015).
42. Alexander, B. M. et al. Adaptive global innovative learning environment for glioblastoma: GBM AGILE. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 737–743 (2018).
43. Berry, S. M., Carlin, B. P., Lee, J. J. & Mueller, P. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials 1st edn (CRC Press, 2010).
44. Thorlund, K., Haggstrom, J., Park, J. J. & Mills, E. J. Key design considerations for adaptive clinical trials: a primer for clinicians. BMJ 360, k698 (2018).
45. Ritchie, C. W. et al. Development of interventions for the secondary prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia: The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) project. Lancet Psychiatry 3, 179–186 (2016).