An optimal two-stage exploratory basket trial design with aggregated futility analysis

A confirmatory basket design considering non-inferiority and superiority testing

For multiple rare diseases as defined by a common biomarker signature, or a disease with multiple disease subtypes of low frequency, it is often possible to provide confirmatory evidence for these disease or subtypes (baskets) as a combined group. A novel drug, as a second generation, may have marginal improvement in efficacy overall but superior efficacy in some baskets. In this situation, it is appealing to test hypotheses of both non-inferiority overall and superiority on certain baskets. The challenge is designing a confirmatory study efficient to address multiple questions in one trial. A two-stage adaptive design is proposed to test the non-inferiority hypothesis at the interim stage, followed by pruning and pooling before testing a superiority hypothesis at the final stage. Such a design enables an efficient and novel registration pathway, including an early claim of non-inferiority followed by a potential label extension with superiority on certain baskets and an improved benefit-risk profile demonstrated by longer term efficacy and safety data. Operating characteristics of this design are examined by simulation studies, and its appealing features make it ready for use in a confirmatory setting, especially in emerging markets, where both the need and the possibility for efficient use of resources may be the greatest.

Basket trials in oncology: a systematic review of practices and methods, comparative analysis of innovative methods, and an appraisal of a missed opportunity

Background

Basket trials are increasingly used in oncology drug development for early signal detection, accelerated tumor-agnostic approvals, and prioritization of promising tumor types in selected patients with the same mutation or biomarker. Participants are grouped into so-called baskets according to tumor type, allowing investigators to identify tumors with promising responses to treatment for further study. However, it remains a question as to whether and how much the adoption of basket trial designs in oncology have translated into patient benefits, increased pace and scale of clinical development, and de-risking of downstream confirmatory trials.

Methods

Innovation in basket trial design and analysis includes methods that borrow information across tumor types to increase the quality of statistical inference within each tumor type. We build on the existing systematic reviews of basket trials in oncology to discuss the current practices and landscape. We conceptually illustrate recent innovative methods for basket trials, with application to actual data from recently completed basket trials. We explore and discuss the extent to which innovative basket trials can be used to de-risk future trials through their ability to aid prioritization of promising tumor types for subsequent clinical development.

Results

We found increasing adoption of basket trial design in oncology, but largely in the design of single-arm phase II trials with a very low adoption of innovative statistical methods. Furthermore, the current practice of basket trial design, which does not consider its impact on the clinical development plan, may lead to a missed opportunity in improving the probability of success of a future trial. Gating phase II with a phase Ib basket trial reduced the size of phase II trials, and losses in the probability of success as a result of not using innovative methods may not be recoverable by running a larger phase II trial.

Conclusion

Innovative basket trial methods can reduce the size of early phase clinical trials, with sustained improvement in the probability of success of the clinical development plan. We need to do more as a community to improve the adoption of these methods.