On study designs and hypotheses for clinical trials with predictive biomarkers

Two-stage stratified designs with survival outcomes and adjustment for misclassification in predictive biomarkers

Biomarker stratified clinical trial designs are versatile tools to assess biomarker clinical utility and address its relationship with clinical endpoints. Due to imperfect assays and/or classification rules, biomarker status is prone to errors. To account for biomarker misclassification, we consider a two-stage stratified design for survival outcomes with an adjustment for misclassification in predictive biomarkers. Compared to continuous and/or binary outcomes, the test statistics for survival outcomes with an adjustment for biomarker misclassification is much more complicated and needs to take special care. We propose to use the information from the observed biomarker status strata to construct adjusted log-rank statistics for true biomarker status strata. These adjusted log-rank statistics are then used to develop sequential tests for the global (composite) hypothesis and component-wise hypothesis. We discuss the power analysis with the control of the type-I error rate by using the correlations between the adjusted log-rank statistics within and between the design stages. Our method is illustrated with examples of the recent successful development of immunotherapy in nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

Confirmatory prediction-driven RCTs in comparative effectiveness settings for cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Medical advances in the treatment of cancer have allowed the development of multiple approved treatments and prognostic and predictive biomarkers for many types of cancer. Identifying improved treatment strategies among approved treatment options, the study of which is termed comparative effectiveness, using predictive biomarkers is becoming more common. RCTs that incorporate predictive biomarkers into the study design, called prediction-driven RCTs, are needed to rigorously evaluate these treatment strategies. Although researched extensively in the experimental treatment setting, literature is lacking in providing guidance about prediction-driven RCTs in the comparative effectiveness setting.

METHODS

Realistic simulations with time-to-event endpoints are used to compare contrasts of clinical utility and provide examples of simulated prediction-driven RCTs in the comparative effectiveness setting.

RESULTS

Our proposed contrast for clinical utility accurately estimates the true clinical utility in the comparative effectiveness setting while in some scenarios, the contrast used in current literature does not.

DISCUSSION

It is important to properly define contrasts of interest according to the treatment setting. Realistic simulations should be used to choose and evaluate the RCT design(s) able to directly estimate that contrast. In the comparative effectiveness setting, our proposed contrast for clinical utility should be used.

Two-stage enrichment clinical trial design with adjustment for misclassification in predictive biomarkers

A two-stage enrichment design is a type of adaptive design, which extends a stratified design with a futility analysis on the marker negative cohort at the first stage, and the second stage can be either a targeted design with only the marker positive stratum, or still the stratified design with both marker strata, depending on the result of the interim futility analysis. In this paper, we consider the situation where the marker assay and the classification rule are possibly subject to error. We derive the sequential tests for the global hypothesis as well as the component tests for the overall cohort and the marker-positive cohort. We discuss the power analysis with the control of the type I error rate and show the adverse impact of the misclassification on the powers. We also show the enhanced power of the two-stage enrichment over the one-stage design and illustrate with examples of the recent successful development of immunotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Relative efficiency of precision medicine designs for clinical trials with predictive biomarkers

Prospective randomized clinical trials addressing biomarkers are time consuming and costly, but are necessary for regulatory agencies to approve new therapies with predictive biomarkers. For this reason, recently, there have been many discussions and proposals of various trial designs and comparisons of their efficiency in the literature. We compare statistical efficiencies between the marker-stratified design and the marker-based precision medicine design regarding testing/estimating 4 hypotheses/parameters of clinical interest, namely, treatment effects in each marker-positive and marker-negative cohorts, marker-by-treatment interaction, and the marker's clinical utility. As may be expected, the stratified design is more efficient than the precision medicine design. However, it is perhaps surprising to find out how low the relative efficiency can be for the precision medicine design. We quantify the relative efficiency as a function of design factors including the marker-positive prevalence rate, marker assay and classification sensitivity and specificity, and the treatment randomization ratio. It is interesting to examine the trends of the relative efficiency with these design parameters in testing different hypotheses. We advocate to use the stratified design over the precision medicine design in clinical trials with predictive biomarkers.