Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers

Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework

Background

Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making.

Objectives

To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker.

Design

A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation.

Methods

The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated.

Results

We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies.

Conclusion

This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

Emerging Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Drug Resistance in Cancer Cells

The rise of drug resistance in cancer cells presents a formidable challenge in modern oncology, necessitating the exploration of innovative therapeutic strategies. This review investigates the latest advancements in overcoming drug resistance mechanisms employed by cancer cells, focusing on emerging therapeutic modalities. The intricate molecular insights into drug resistance, including genetic mutations, efflux pumps, altered signaling pathways, and microenvironmental influences, are discussed. Furthermore, the promising avenues offered by targeted therapies, combination treatments, immunotherapies, and precision medicine approaches are highlighted. Specifically, the synergistic effects of combining traditional cytotoxic agents with molecularly targeted inhibitors to circumvent resistance pathways are examined. Additionally, the evolving landscape of immunotherapeutic interventions, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell therapies, is explored in terms of bolstering anti-tumor immune responses and overcoming immune evasion mechanisms. Moreover, the significance of biomarker-driven strategies for predicting and monitoring treatment responses is underscored, thereby optimizing therapeutic outcomes. For insights into the future direction of cancer treatment paradigms, the current review focused on prevailing drug resistance challenges and improving patient outcomes, through an integrative analysis of these emerging therapeutic strategies.

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.

An explainable machine learning-based phenomapping strategy for adaptive predictive enrichment in randomized clinical trials

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) represent the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are resource-intensive. We propose and evaluate a machine learning (ML) strategy of adaptive predictive enrichment through computational trial phenomaps to optimize RCT enrollment. In simulated group sequential analyses of two large cardiovascular outcomes RCTs of (1) a therapeutic drug (pioglitazone versus placebo; Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial), and (2) a disease management strategy (intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure reduction in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)), we constructed dynamic phenotypic representations to infer response profiles during interim analyses and examined their association with study outcomes. Across three interim timepoints, our strategy learned dynamic phenotypic signatures predictive of individualized cardiovascular benefit. By conditioning a prospective candidate's probability of enrollment on their predicted benefit, we estimate that our approach would have enabled a reduction in the final trial size across ten simulations (IRIS: -14.8% ± 3.1%, pone-sample t-test = 0.001; SPRINT: -17.6% ± 3.6%, pone-sample t-test < 0.001), while preserving the original average treatment effect (IRIS: hazard ratio of 0.73 ± 0.01 for pioglitazone vs placebo, vs 0.76 in the original trial; SPRINT: hazard ratio of 0.72 ± 0.01 for intensive vs standard systolic blood pressure, vs 0.75 in the original trial; all simulations with Cox regression-derived p value of  < 0.01 for the effect of the intervention on the respective primary outcome). This adaptive framework has the potential to maximize RCT enrollment efficiency.

An explainable machine learning-based phenomapping strategy for adaptive predictive enrichment in randomized controlled trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) represent the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are resource-intensive. We propose and evaluate a machine learning (ML) strategy of adaptive predictive enrichment through computational trial phenomaps to optimize RCT enrollment. In simulated group sequential analyses of two large cardiovascular outcomes RCTs of (1) a therapeutic drug (pioglitazone versus placebo; Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial), and (2) a disease management strategy (intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure reduction in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)), we constructed dynamic phenotypic representations to infer response profiles during interim analyses and examined their association with study outcomes. Across three interim timepoints, our strategy learned dynamic phenotypic signatures predictive of individualized cardiovascular benefit. By conditioning a prospective candidate's probability of enrollment on their predicted benefit, we estimate that our approach would have enabled a reduction in the final trial size across ten simulations (IRIS: -14.8% ± 3.1%, pone-sample t-test=0.001; SPRINT: -17.6% ± 3.6%, pone-sample t-test<0.001), while preserving the original average treatment effect (IRIS: hazard ratio of 0.73 ± 0.01 for pioglitazone vs placebo, vs 0.76 in the original trial; SPRINT: hazard ratio of 0.72 ± 0.01 for intensive vs standard systolic blood pressure, vs 0.75 in the original trial; all with pone-sample t-test<0.01). This adaptive framework has the potential to maximize RCT enrollment efficiency.

Extending the vision of adaptive point-of-care platform trials to improve targeted use of drug therapy regimens: An agile approach in the learning healthcare system toolkit

OBJECTIVES

Improving the targeted use of drug regimens requires robust real-world evidence (RWE) to address the uncertainties that remain regarding their real-world performance following market entry. However, challenges in the current state of RWE production limit its impact on clinical decisions, as well as its operational scalability and sustainability. We propose an adaptive point-of-care (APoC) platform trial as an approach to RWE production that improves both clinical and operational efficiencies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We explored design innovations, operational challenges, and infrastructure needs within a multi-stakeholder consortium to evaluate the potential of an APoC platform trial for studying chronic disease treatment regimens using rheumatoid arthritis as a case study. The concept integrates elements from adaptive clinical trials (dynamic treatment regimen strategies) and point-of-care trials (research embedded into routine clinical care) under a perpetual platform infrastructure. The necessary components to implement an APoC platform trial within outpatient settings exist, and present an opportunity for a cross-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach. Effective engagement of key stakeholders involved in and impacted by the platform is critical to success. Our collaborative design process identified three high-impact stakeholder-engagement areas: (1) focus on research question(s), (2) design and implementation planning such that it is feasible and fit-for-purpose, and (3) measurement, or meaningful metrics for both clinical (patient outcomes) and system (operational efficiencies) impact.

CONCLUSIONS

An APoC platform trial for rheumatoid arthritis integrating innovative design elements in a scalable infrastructure has the potential to reduce important uncertainties about the real-world performance of biomedical innovations and improve clinical decisions.

Looking ahead in early-phase trial design to improve the drug development process: examples in oncology

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial design must consider the specific resource constraints and overall goals of the drug development process (DDP); for example, in designing a phase I trial to evaluate the safety of a drug and recommend a dose for a subsequent phase II trial. Here, we focus on design considerations that involve the sequence of clinical trials, from early phase I to late phase III, that constitute the DDP.

METHODS

We discuss how stylized simulation models of clinical trials in an oncology DDP can quantify important relationships between early-phase trial designs and their consequences for the remaining phases of development. Simulations for three illustrative settings are presented, using stylized models of the DDP that mimic trial designs and decisions, such as the potential discontinuation of the DDP.

RESULTS

We describe: (1) the relationship between a phase II single-arm trial sample size and the likelihood of a positive result in a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial; (2) the impact of a phase I dose-finding design on the likelihood that the DDP will produce evidence of a safe and effective therapy; and (3) the impact of a phase II enrichment trial design on the operating characteristics of a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Stylized models of the DDP can support key decisions, such as the sample size, in the design of early-phase trials. Simulation models can be used to estimate performance metrics of the DDP under realistic scenarios; for example, the duration and the total number of patients enrolled. These estimates complement the evaluation of the operating characteristics of early-phase trial design, such as power or accuracy in selecting safe and effective dose levels.

New insights into adaptive enrichment designs

The transition towards personalized medicine is happening and the new experimental framework is raising several challenges, from a clinical, ethical, logistical, regulatory, and statistical perspective. To face these challenges, innovative study designs with increasing complexity have been proposed. In particular, adaptive enrichment designs are becoming more attractive for their flexibility. However, these procedures rely on an increasing number of parameters that are unknown at the planning stage of the clinical trial, so the study design requires particular care. This review is dedicated to adaptive enrichment studies with a focus on design aspects. While many papers deal with methods for the analysis, the sample size determination and the optimal allocation problem have been overlooked. We discuss the multiple aspects involved in adaptive enrichment designs that contribute to their advantages and disadvantages. The decision-making process of whether or not it is worth enriching should be driven by clinical and ethical considerations as well as scientific and statistical concerns.

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.

A Causal Framework for Making Individualized Treatment Decisions in Oncology

Simple Summary

Physicians routinely make individualized treatment decisions by accounting for the joint effects of patient prognostic covariates and treatments on clinical outcomes. Ideally, this is performed using historical randomized clinical trial (RCT) data. Randomization ensures that unbiased estimates of causal treatment effect parameters can be obtained from the historical RCT data and used to predict each new patient’s outcome based on the joint effect of their baseline covariates and each treatment being considered. However, this process becomes problematic if a patient seen in the clinic is very different from the patients who were enrolled in the RCT. That is, if a new patient does not satisfy the entry criteria of the RCT, then the patient does not belong to the population represented by the patients who were studied in the RCT. In such settings, it still may be possible to utilize the RCT data to help choose a new patient’s treatment. This may be achieved by combining the RCT data with data from other clinical trials, or possibly preclinical experiments, and using the combined dataset to predict the patient’s expected outcome for each treatment being considered. In such settings, combining data from multiple sources in a way that is statistically reliable is not entirely straightforward, and correctly identifying and estimating the effects of treatments and patient covariates on clinical outcomes can be complex. Causal diagrams provide a rational basis to guide this process. The first step is to construct a causal diagram that reflects the plausible relationships between treatment variables, patient covariates, and clinical outcomes. If the diagram is correct, it can be used to determine what additional data may be needed, how to combine data from multiple sources, how to formulate a statistical model for clinical outcomes as a function of treatment and covariates, and how to compute an unbiased treatment effect estimate for each new patient. We use adjuvant therapy of renal cell carcinoma to illustrate how causal diagrams may be used to guide these steps.

Abstract

We discuss how causal diagrams can be used by clinicians to make better individualized treatment decisions. Causal diagrams can distinguish between settings where clinical decisions can rely on a conventional additive regression model fit to data from a historical randomized clinical trial (RCT) to estimate treatment effects and settings where a different approach is needed. This may be because a new patient does not meet the RCT’s entry criteria, or a treatment’s effect is modified by biomarkers or other variables that act as mediators between treatment and outcome. In some settings, the problem can be addressed simply by including treatment–covariate interaction terms in the statistical regression model used to analyze the RCT dataset. However, if the RCT entry criteria exclude a new patient seen in the clinic, it may be necessary to combine the RCT data with external data from other RCTs, single-arm trials, or preclinical experiments evaluating biological treatment effects. For example, external data may show that treatment effects differ between histological subgroups not recorded in an RCT. A causal diagram may be used to decide whether external observational or experimental data should be obtained and combined with RCT data to compute statistical estimates for making individualized treatment decisions. We use adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma as our motivating example to illustrate how to construct causal diagrams and apply them to guide clinical decisions.

Using surrogate information to improve confirmatory platform trial with sample size re-estimation

Platform design which allows exploring multiple arms with a common control simultaneously is becoming essential for efficient drug development. However, one of the critical challenges for confirmatory platform trials is immature data for interim decisions, particularly for the treatment arm selection and sample size determination with limited data available. We use a modified conditional power (CP) for both treatment arm selection and sample size determination at interim analysis for the proposed platform trial. The modified CP uses the available data from both primary and surrogate endpoints. We also demonstrated the application in a case study of a lung cancer trial.

Study designs for clinical trials applied to personalised medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Personalised medicine (PM) allows treating patients based on their individual demographic, genomic or biological characteristics for tailoring the 'right treatment for the right person at the right time'. Robust methodology is required for PM clinical trials, to correctly identify groups of participants and treatments. As an initial step for the development of new recommendations on trial designs for PM, we aimed to present an overview of the study designs that have been used in this field.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We searched (April 2020) PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for all reports in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, describing study designs for clinical trials applied to PM. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate resolving disagreements by consensus or by involving a third expert reviewer. We extracted information on the characteristics of trial designs and examples of current applications of these approaches. The extracted information was used to generate a new classification of trial designs for PM.

RESULTS

We identified 21 trial designs, 10 subtypes and 30 variations of trial designs applied to PM, which we classified into four core categories (namely, Master protocol, Randomise-all, Biomarker strategy and Enrichment). We found 131 clinical trials using these designs, of which the great majority were master protocols (86/131, 65.6%). Most of the trials were phase II studies (75/131, 57.2%) in the field of oncology (113/131, 86.3%). We identified 34 main features of trial designs regarding different aspects (eg, framework, control group, randomisation). The four core categories and 34 features were merged into a double-entry table to create a new classification of trial designs for PM.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of trial designs exists and is applied to PM. A new classification of trial designs is proposed to help readers to navigate the complex field of PM clinical trials.

Non-asymptotic Properties of Individualized Treatment Rules from Sequentially Rule-Adaptive Trials

Learning optimal individualized treatment rules (ITRs) has become increasingly important in the modern era of precision medicine. Many statistical and machine learning methods for learning optimal ITRs have been developed in the literature. However, most existing methods are based on data collected from traditional randomized controlled trials and thus cannot take advantage of the accumulative evidence when patients enter the trials sequentially. It is also ethically important that future patients should have a high probability to be treated optimally based on the updated knowledge so far. In this work, we propose a new design called sequentially rule-adaptive trials to learn optimal ITRs based on the contextual bandit framework, in contrast to the response-adaptive design in traditional adaptive trials. In our design, each entering patient will be allocated with a high probability to the current best treatment for this patient, which is estimated using the past data based on some machine learning algorithm (for example, outcome weighted learning in our implementation). We explore the tradeoff between training and test values of the estimated ITR in single-stage problems by proving theoretically that for a higher probability of following the estimated ITR, the training value converges to the optimal value at a faster rate, while the test value converges at a slower rate. This problem is different from traditional decision problems in the sense that the training data are generated sequentially and are dependent. We also develop a tool that combines martingale with empirical process to tackle the problem that cannot be solved by previous techniques for i.i.d. data. We show by numerical examples that without much loss of the test value, our proposed algorithm can improve the training value significantly as compared to existing methods. Finally, we use a real data study to illustrate the performance of the proposed method.

An Overview of Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs

Clinical trials are studies to test new treatments in humans. Typically, these treatments are evaluated over several phases to assess their safety and efficacy. Phase 1 trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of a new treatment, typically with a small number of patients (eg, 20-80), generally spread across several dose levels. Phase 2 trials are designed to determine whether the new treatment has sufficiently promising efficacy to warrant further investigation in a large-scale randomized phase 3 trial, as well as to further assess safety. These studies usually involve a few hundred patients. This article provides an overview of some of the most commonly used phase 2 designs for clinical trials and emphasizes their critical elements and considerations. Key references to some of the most commonly used phase 2 designs are given to allow the reader to explore in more detail the critical aspects when planning a phase 2 trial. A comparison of 3 potential designs in the context of the NRG-HN002 trial is presented to complement the discussion about phase 2 trials.

Incorporating covariates information in adaptive clinical trials for precision medicine

Precision medicine is the systematic use of information that pertains to an individual patient to select or optimize that patient's preventative and therapeutic care. Recent studies have classified biomarkers into predictive and prognostic biomarkers based on their roles in clinical studies. To design a clinical trial for precision medicine, predictive biomarkers and prognostic biomarkers should both be included. In statistical analysis, biomarkers are mathematically treated as covariates. We first classify covariates into predictive and prognostic covariates according to their roles. We then provide a brief review of recent advances in adaptive designs that incorporate covariates. However, the literature includes no designs that incorporate both prognostic covariates and predictive covariates simultaneously. In this paper, we propose a new family of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) designs that incorporate both prognostic and predictive covariates and the responses. It is important to note that the predictive biomarkers and prognostic biomarkers play different roles in the new designs. The advantages of the proposed methods are demonstrated via numerical studies, and some further statistical issues are also discussed.

Of some innovations in clinical trial design in hematology and oncology

The design of clinical trials, formalized in the immediate post-war period, has undergone major changes due to therapeutic innovations, particularly the arrival of targeted therapies in onco-hematology. The traditional phase I-II-III regimen is regularly questioned and multiple adaptations are proposed. This article proposes to expose some of these modifications and the issues they lead to.

Comparison of Joint and Landmark Modeling for Predicting Cancer Progression in Men With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Post Hoc Analysis of the PREVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Dynamic prediction models may help predict radiographic disease progression in advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether dynamic prediction models aid prognosis of radiographic progression risk, using ongoing longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assessments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prognostic study used data from the PREVAIL study to compare dynamic models for predicting disease progression. The PREVAIL study was a phase 3, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of enzalutamide for prostate cancer conducted from September 2010 to September 2012. A total of 773 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had never received chemotherapy and had no baseline visceral disease were treated with enzalutamide. For illustration, 4 patients were selected based on PSA kinetics or PSA response in case studies. Data were analyzed from July 2018 to September 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Landmark and joint models were applied to dynamically predict radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) using longitudinal PSA profile, baseline PSA, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin levels. The main outcome was radiographic PFS as predicted using landmark and joint models. Current PSA and PSA change were considered longitudinal biomarkers possibly associated with radiographic PFS. Predictive performance was evaluated using Brier score for overall prediction errors (PEs) and area under the curve (AUC) for model discriminative capability. Case studies were illustrated using dynamic prediction plots.

RESULTS

A total of 763 men with metastatic CRPC treated with enzalutamide (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.5] years; mean [SD] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 28.4 [4.6]) were included in the analysis. Current PSA and PSA change were associated with radiographic PFS in all models. Adding the PSA slope, compared with the landmark models using current PSA alone, improved the prediction of 5-month prospect of radiographic progression, with relative gains of 5.7% in prediction (PE [SE], 0.132 [0.008] vs 0.140 [0.008]) and 7.7% in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.800 [0.018] vs 0.743 [0.018]) at month 10. In joint models with linear vs nonlinear PSA, prediction of 5-month risk of radiographic progression was improved when PSA trajectories were not assumed to be linear, with 8.0% relative gain in prediction (PE [SE], 0.150 [0.006] vs 0.138 [0.005]) and 19.4% relative gain in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.653 [0.022] vs 0.780 [0.016]) at month 10. Predictions were affected by amount of marker information accumulated and prespecified assumptions. PSA changes affected progression risk more strongly at later vs earlier follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This prognostic study found that prediction of radiographic PFS was improved when longitudinal PSA information was added to baseline variables. In a population of patients with metastatic CRPC, dynamic predictions using landmark or joint models may help identify patients at risk of progression.

Clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients treated in phase I clinical trials at University of Colorado Cancer Center

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) refractory to standard of care therapies have a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to assess patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients with MBC treated on phase I clinical trials. We performed a retrospective review of all patients with MBC who were enrolled in phase I clinical trials at the University of Colorado Cancer Center from January 2012 to June 2018. A total of 208 patients were identified. Patients had a mean age of 57 years and received on average 2.1 (range 0-10) prior lines of chemotherapy. The majority of patients had hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (58.6%) and 30.3% had triple-negative breast cancer. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.9) and median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.2). Independent factors associated with longer PFS in multivariable analysis were treatment in a breast cancer-selective trial or cohort (p = 0.016), age >50 years (p = 0.002), and ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (p = 0.025). Phase I clinical trials remain a valuable option for select patients with MBC and enrollment should be encouraged when available.

Innovative trial designs and analyses for vaccine clinical development

In the past decades, the world has experienced several major virus outbreaks, e.g. West African Ebola outbreak, Zika virus in South America and most recently global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Many vaccines have been developed to prevent a variety of infectious diseases successfully. However, several infections have not been preventable so far, like COVID-19, which induces an immediate urgent need for effective vaccines. These emerging infectious diseases often pose unprecedent challenges for the global heath community as well as the conventional vaccine development paradigm. With a long and costly traditional vaccine development process, there are extensive needs in innovative vaccine trial designs and analyses, which aim to design more efficient vaccines trials. Featured with reduced development timeline, less resource consuming or improved estimate for the endpoints of interests, these more efficient trials bring effective medicine to target population in a faster and less costly way. In this paper, we will review a few vaccine trials equipped with adaptive design features, Bayesian designs that accommodate historical data borrowing, the master protocol strategy emerging during COVID-19 vaccine development, Real-World-Data (RWD) embedded trials and the correlate of protection framework and relevant research works. We will also discuss some statistical methodologies that improve the vaccine efficacy, safety and immunogenicity analyses. Innovative clinical trial designs and analyses, together with advanced research technologies and deeper understanding of the human immune system, are paving the way for the efficient development of new vaccines in the future.

Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Medical Journals

Statistical methods are essential in medical research. They are used for data analysis and drawing appropriate conclusions. Clarity and accuracy of statistical reporting in medical journals can enhance readers' understanding of the research conducted and the results obtained. In this manuscript, we provide guidelines for statistical reporting in medical journals for authors to consider, with a focus on the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Biomarkers in critical care nutrition

The goal of nutrition support is to provide the substrates required to match the bioenergetic needs of the patient and promote the net synthesis of macromolecules required for the preservation of lean mass, organ function, and immunity. Contemporary observational studies have exposed the pervasive undernutrition of critically ill patients and its association with adverse clinical outcomes. The intuitive hypothesis is that optimization of nutrition delivery should improve ICU clinical outcomes. It is therefore surprising that multiple large randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the clinical benefit of restoring or maximizing nutrient intake. This may be in part due to the absence of biological markers that identify patients who are most likely to benefit from nutrition interventions and that monitor the effects of nutrition support. Here, we discuss the need for practical risk stratification tools in critical care nutrition, a proposed rationale for targeted biomarker development, and potential approaches that can be adopted for biomarker identification and validation in the field.

The Evolution of Master Protocol Clinical Trial Designs: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen a change in the way that clinical trials are being conducted. There has been a rise of designs more flexible than traditional adaptive and group sequential trials which allow the investigation of multiple substudies with possibly different objectives, interventions, and subgroups conducted within an overall trial structure, summarized by the term master protocol. This review aims to identify existing master protocol studies and summarize their characteristics. The review also identifies articles relevant to the design of master protocol trials, such as proposed trial designs and related methods.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic search to review current literature on master protocol trials from a design and analysis perspective, focusing on platform trials and considering basket and umbrella trials. Articles were included regardless of statistical complexity and classified as reviews related to planned or conducted trials, trial designs, or statistical methods. The results of the literature search are reported, and some features of the identified articles are summarized.

FINDINGS

Most of the trials using master protocols were designed as single-arm (n = 29/50), Phase II trials (n = 32/50) in oncology (n = 42/50) using a binary endpoint (n = 26/50) and frequentist decision rules (n = 37/50). We observed an exponential increase in publications in this domain during the last few years in both planned and conducted trials, as well as relevant methods, which we assume has not yet reached its peak. Although many operational and statistical challenges associated with such trials remain, the general consensus seems to be that master protocols provide potentially enormous advantages in efficiency and flexibility of clinical drug development.

IMPLICATIONS

Master protocol trials and especially platform trials have the potential to revolutionize clinical drug development if the methodologic and operational challenges can be overcome.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

A semiparametric Bayesian approach to population finding with time-to-event and toxicity data in a randomized clinical trial

A utility-based Bayesian population finding (BaPoFi) method was proposed by Morita and Müller to analyze data from a randomized clinical trial with the aim of identifying good predictive baseline covariates for optimizing the target population for a future study. The approach casts the population finding process as a formal decision problem together with a flexible probability model using a random forest to define a regression mean function. BaPoFi is constructed to handle a single continuous or binary outcome variable. In this paper, we develop BaPoFi-TTE as an extension of the earlier approach for clinically important cases of time-to-event (TTE) data with censoring, and also accounting for a toxicity outcome. We model the association of TTE data with baseline covariates using a semiparametric failure time model with a Pólya tree prior for an unknown error term and a random forest for a flexible regression mean function. We define a utility function that addresses a trade-off between efficacy and toxicity as one of the important clinical considerations for population finding. We examine the operating characteristics of the proposed method in extensive simulation studies. For illustration, we apply the proposed method to data from a randomized oncology clinical trial. Concerns in a preliminary analysis of the same data based on a parametric model motivated the proposed more general approach.

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.

MET inhibitors in cancer: pitfalls and challenges

Introduction: The HGF/MET axis is a key therapeutic pathway in cancer; it is aberrantly activated because of mutations, fusions, amplification or aberrant ligand production. Extensive efforts have been made to discover predictive factors of anti-MET therapeutic efficacy, but they have mostly unsuccessful. An understanding of the intrinsic and acquired mechanism of MET resistance will be fundamental for the development of new therapeutic interventions.Areas covered: This article provides a systematic review of phase II randomized and phase III clinical trials investigating the use of MET inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. We discuss preliminary findings on efficacy and methodologic design flaws in these trials.Expert opinion: MET inhibitors showed poor activity in unselected patients or patients selected by MET expression, p-MET or high HGF basal levels. The efficacy in advanced solid tumors is very modest and in phase III clinical trials, survival differences did not fulfill the stringent requirements of ESMO-Magnitude Clinical Benefit Score (MCBS). Prospective novel liquid biomarker-driven studies and novel trial designs such as Umbrella and Basket trials are necessary to progress MET inhibitor development.

Biomarker-Driven Oncology Clinical Trials: Key Design Elements, Types, Features, and Practical Considerations

In this precision oncology era, where molecular profiling at the individual patient level becomes increasingly accessible and affordable, more and more clinical trials are now driven by biomarkers, with an overarching objective to optimize and personalize disease management. As compared with the conventional clinical development paradigms, where the key is to evaluate treatment effects in histology-defined populations, the choices of biomarker-driven clinical trial designs and analysis plans require additional considerations that are heavily dependent on the nature of biomarkers (eg, prognostic or predictive, integral or integrated) and the credential of biomarkers' performance and clinical utility. Most recently, another major paradigm change in biomarker-driven trials is to conduct multi-agent and/or multihistology master protocols or platform trials. These trials, although they may enjoy substantial infrastructure and logistical advantages, also face unique operational and conduct challenges. Here we provide a concise overview of design options for both the setting of single-biomarker/single-disease and the setting of multiple-biomarker/multiple-disease types. We focus on explaining the trial design and practical considerations and rationale of when to use which designs, as well as how to incorporate various adaptive design components to provide additional flexibility, enhance logistical efficiency, and optimize resource allocation. Lessons learned from real trials are also presented for illustration.

Prospective Biomarker Study in Advanced RAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: POSIBA Trial (GEMCAD 10-02)

This articles compares the capacity of several biomarkers (BRAF mutation, PIK3CA mutation/PTEN loss and DP phenotype) to predict 12‐month progression‐free survival and compares it with that of clinical variables

Background.

RAS testing is used to select patients with anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies sensitivity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, other biomarkers such as BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and p‐IGF‐1R+/MMP7+ (double positive [DP] phenotype) have not been prospectively assessed to predict anti‐EGFR resistance.

Materials and Methods.

We designed a multicenter prospective trial (NCT01276379) to evaluate whether the biomarkers BRAF mutation, PIK3CA mutation/PTEN loss, and DP phenotype can improve the prediction for 12‐months progression‐free survival (PFS) over the use of clinical variables exclusively in patients with RAS wild‐type (WT) mCRC treated with standard chemotherapy plus biweekly cetuximab as first‐line therapy. The planned sample size was 170 RAS WT patients to detect a 20% difference in 12‐month PFS based on the analysis of clinical and selected biomarkers (α = .05, β = .2). The discriminatory capacity of the biomarkers was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results.

We included 181 RAS WT patients. The biomarker distribution was as follows: BRAF mutant, 20 patients (11%); PIK3CA mutated/PTEN loss, 98 patients (58%); DP, 23 patients (12.7%). The clinical variables in the clinical score were progression status >0, left‐sided tumor, and resectable liver metastasis as the only metastatic site. The area under the curve (AUC) of the score containing the clinical variables was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–0.75). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and BRAF mutational status was 0.68 (0.61–0.75, p = .37). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and PI3KCA mutation/PTEN status was 0.69 (0.61–0.76, p = .32). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and DP phenotype was 0.66 (0.58–0.73, p = .09).

Conclusion.

The addition of BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and DP to a clinical score does not improve the discrimination of 12‐month PFS.

Implications for Practice.

This prospective biomarker design study has important clinical implications because many prospective clinical trials are designed with the hypothesis that BRAF mutation per se and MEK and PIK3CA downstream pathways are critical for colorectal tumor survival. The results lead to the question of whether these pathways should be considered as passengers instead of drivers.

Electronic Health Record Phenotypes for Precision Medicine: Perspectives and Caveats From Treatment of Breast Cancer at a Single Institution

Precision medicine is at the forefront of biomedical research. Cancer registries provide rich perspectives and electronic health records (EHRs) are commonly utilized to gather additional clinical data elements needed for translational research. However, manual annotation is resource‐intense and not readily scalable. Informatics‐based phenotyping presents an ideal solution, but perspectives obtained can be impacted by both data source and algorithm selection. We derived breast cancer (BC) receptor status phenotypes from structured and unstructured EHR data using rule‐based algorithms, including natural language processing (NLP). Overall, the use of NLP increased BC receptor status coverage by 39.2% from 69.1% with structured medication information alone. Using all available EHR data, estrogen receptor‐positive BC cases were ascertained with high precision (P = 0.976) and recall (R = 0.987) compared with gold standard chart‐reviewed patients. However, status negation (R = 0.591) decreased 40.2% when relying on structured medications alone. Using multiple EHR data types (and thorough understanding of the perspectives offered) are necessary to derive robust EHR‐based precision medicine phenotypes.

The interplay of circulating tumor DNA and chromatin modification, therapeutic resistance, and metastasis

Peripheral circulating free DNA (cfDNA) is DNA that is detected in plasma or serum fluid with a cell-free status. For cancer patients, cfDNA not only originates from apoptotic cells but also from necrotic tumor cells and disseminated tumor cells that have escaped into the blood during epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Additionally, cfDNA derived from tumors, also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), carries tumor-associated genetic and epigenetic changes in cancer patients, which makes ctDNA a potential biomarker for the early diagnosis of tumors, monitory and therapeutic evaluations, and prognostic assessments, among others, for various kinds of cancer. Moreover, analyses of cfDNA chromatin modifications can reflect the heterogeneity of tumors and have potential for predicting tumor drug resistance.

Accelerating Therapeutic Development through Innovative Trial Design in Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Current trial design is challenged by the advancement of technologies that have enabled deeper understanding of the molecular drivers of colorectal cancer (CRC). The speed of trial testing and the ability to test larger volumes of promising novel agents in the face of smaller populations identified by molecular profiling are challenges posed to clinical studies. Master protocols that utilize umbrella designs are equipped to deal with potential biomarker and matched treatments simultaneously. Although complex in nature, they increase trial efficiency by utilizing shared screening platforms, test multiple treatments together, and simplify regulatory submission and reporting under a common protocol. Emerging technologies such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may help speed up adjuvant trials. These studies have been traditionally slow to complete due to low event rates and the high numbers needed to recruit. ctDNA used as a surrogate for minimal residual disease (MRD) and as an early marker of relapse may help counter some of these factors that deter innovation in this setting. Finally, in the era of precision medicine, surgery should not be forgotten as the only potentially curative option to date in metastatic disease. Five-year overall survival following resection of liver metastasis exceeds what can be achieved with chemotherapy alone in selected cases. Surgical advances have lowered morbidity and allow for greater resection volumes and repeated interventions. Although historically challenging, a well-designed randomized surgical intervention trial would greatly facilitate moving single-institution guidelines reported by case series into wider clinical practice.

Biomarker threshold adaptive designs for survival endpoints

Due to the importance of precision medicine, it is essential to identify the right patients for the right treatment. Biomarkers, which have been commonly used in clinical research as well as in clinical practice, can facilitate selection of patients with a good response to the treatment. In this paper, we describe a biomarker threshold adaptive design with survival endpoints. In the first stage, we determine subgroups for one or more biomarkers such that patients in these subgroups benefit the most from the new treatment. The analysis in this stage can be based on historical or pilot studies. In the second stage, we sample subjects from the subgroups determined in the first stage and randomly allocate them to the treatment or control group. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to examine the performance of the proposed design. Application to a real data example is provided for implementation of the first-stage algorithms.

Histopathological growth patterns as a candidate biomarker for immunomodulatory therapy

The encroachment of a growing tumor upon the cells and structures of surrounding normal tissue results in a series of histopathological growth patterns (HGPs). These morphological changes can be assessed in hematoxylin-and-eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections from primary and metastatic tumors and have been characterized in a range of tissue types including liver, lung, lymph node and skin. HGPs in different tissues share certain general characteristics like the extent of angiogenesis, but also appropriate tissue-specific mechanisms which ultimately determine differences in the biology of HGP subtypes. For instance, in the well-characterized HGPs of liver metastases, the two main subtypes, replacement and desmoplastic, recapitulate two responses of the normal liver to injury: regeneration and fibrosis. HGP subtypes have distinct cytokine profiles and differing levels of lymphocytic infiltration which suggests that they are indicative of immune status in the tumor microenvironment. HGPs predict response to bevacizumab and are associated with overall survival (OS) after surgery for liver metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). In addition, HGPs can change over time in response to therapy. With standard scoring methods being developed, HGPs represent an easily accessible, dynamic biomarker to consider when determining strategies for treatment using anti-VEGF and immunomodulatory drugs.

A transatlantic perspective on the integration of immuno-oncology prognostic and predictive biomarkers in innovative clinical trial design

Immuno-therapeutics aim to activate the body's own immune system against cancer and are one of the most promising cancer treatment strategies, but currently limited by a variable response rate. Biomarkers may help to distinguish those patients most likely to respond to therapy; they may also help guide clinical decision making for combination therapies, dosing schedules, and determining progression versus relapse. However, there is a need to confirm such biomarkers in preferably prospective clinical trials before they can be used in practice. Accordingly, it is essential that clinical trials for immuno-therapeutics incorporate biomarkers. Here, focusing on the specific setting of immune therapies, we discuss both the scientific and logistical hurdles to identifying potential biomarkers and testing them in clinical trials.

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.

Precision oncology: neither a silver bullet nor a dream

Precision oncology is not an illusion, nor is it the magic bullet that will eradicate all cancers. Precision oncology is simply another weapon in our growing armament against cancer. Rather than honing in on the failures of a relatively young field, one should advocate for integrating its successes into widespread clinical practice, especially for indications, such as: ABL, ALK, BRAF, BRCA1, BRCA2, EGFR, KIT, KRAS, PDGFRA, PDGFRB, ROS1, BCR-ABL, FLT3 and ROS1, where aberrations have been shown to alter responses to US FDA approved drugs - that is, level 1 data. Moreover, to truly assess the promise of precision oncology, we must first begin by defining our expectations for this field. Importantly, we must recognize that the conception of precision oncology arose as an antithesis of the 'one-size fits all' cancer therapeutics approach. Consequently, tools used for evaluating these conventional, large-scale trials, are not directly transferable for assessing nonconventional, smaller-scale trials needed for evaluating precision oncology. Hence, a thorough vetting of precision oncology as another tool of the trade, must first begin by reassessing our expectations for this field, as well as current clinical trial designs and end point measurements. Importantly, we must recognize that most targeted therapy approaches are in their infancy, with only monotherapy approaches being assessed and combination therapies likely being necessary to fulfill the promise of precision oncology.

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol.

Bayesian population finding with biomarkers in a randomized clinical trial

The identification of good predictive biomarkers allows investigators to optimize the target population for a new treatment. We propose a novel utility-based Bayesian population finding (BaPoFi) method to analyze data from a randomized clinical trial with the aim of finding a sensitive patient population. Our approach is based on casting the population finding process as a formal decision problem together with a flexible probability model, Bayesian additive regression trees (BART), to summarize observed data. The proposed method evaluates enhanced treatment effects in patient subpopulations based on counter-factual modeling of responses to new treatment and control for each patient. In extensive simulation studies, we examine the operating characteristics of the proposed method. We compare with a Bayesian regression-based method that implements shrinkage estimates of subgroup-specific treatment effects. For illustration, we apply the proposed method to data from a randomized clinical trial.

Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review

Biomarker-guided treatment is a rapidly developing area of medicine, where treatment choice is personalised according to one or more of an individual’s biomarker measurements. A number of biomarker-guided trial designs have been proposed in the past decade, including both adaptive and non-adaptive trial designs which test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment with the aim of improving patient health. A better understanding of them is needed as challenges occur both in terms of trial design and analysis. We have undertaken a comprehensive literature review based on an in-depth search strategy with a view to providing the research community with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology of the various biomarker-guided trial designs (both adaptive and non-adaptive designs) from a total of 211 included papers. In the present paper, we focus on non-adaptive biomarker-guided trial designs for which we have identified five distinct main types mentioned in 100 papers. We have graphically displayed each non-adaptive trial design and provided an in-depth overview of their key characteristics. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. Our comprehensive review provides guidance for those designing biomarker-guided trials.

Innovations in Clinical Trial Design in the Era of Molecular Profiling

Historically, cancer has been studied, and therapeutic agents have been evaluated based on organ site, clinical staging, and histology. The science of molecular profiling has expanded our knowledge of cancer at the cellular and molecular level such that numerous subtypes are being described based on biomarker expression and genetic mutations rather than traditional classifications of the disease. Drug development has experienced a concomitant revolution in response to this knowledge with many new targeted therapeutic agents becoming available, and this has necessitated an evolution in clinical trial design. The traditional, large phase II and phase III adjuvant trial models need to be replaced with smaller, shorter, and more focused trials. These trials need to be more efficient and adaptive in order to quickly assess the efficacy of new agents and develop new companion diagnostics. We are now seeing a substantial shift from the traditional multiphase trial model to an increase in phase II adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials in earlier-stage disease incorporating surrogate endpoints for long-term survival to assess efficacy of therapeutic agents in shorter time frames. New trial designs have emerged with capabilities to assess more efficiently multiple disease types, multiple molecular subtypes, and multiple agents simultaneously, and regulatory agencies have responded by outlining new pathways for accelerated drug approval that can help bring effective targeted therapeutic agents to the clinic more quickly for patients in need.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: basket trials, umbrella trials, and other master protocols: a review and examples

In recent years, cancers once viewed as relatively homogeneous in terms of organ location and treatment strategy are now better understood to be increasingly heterogeneous across biomarker and genetically defined patient subgroups. This has produced a shift toward development of biomarker-targeted agents during a time when funding for cancer research has been limited; as a result, the need for improved operational efficiency in studying many agent-and-target combinations in parallel has emerged. Platform trials, basket trials, and umbrella trials are new approaches to clinical research driven by this need for enhanced efficiency in the modern era of increasingly specific cancer subpopulations and decreased resources to study treatments for individual cancer subtypes in a traditional way. In this review, we provide an overview of these new types of clinical trial designs, including discussions of motivation for their use, recommended terminology, examples, and challenges encountered in their application.

Use of big data in drug development for precision medicine

Drug development has been a costly and lengthy process with an extremely low success rate and lack of consideration of individual diversity in drug response and toxicity. Over the past decade, an alternative "big data" approach has been expanding at an unprecedented pace based on the development of electronic databases of chemical substances, disease gene/protein targets, functional readouts, and clinical information covering inter-individual genetic variations and toxicities. This paradigm shift has enabled systematic, high-throughput, and accelerated identification of novel drugs or repurposed indications of existing drugs for pathogenic molecular aberrations specifically present in each individual patient. The exploding interest from the information technology and direct-to-consumer genetic testing industries has been further facilitating the use of big data to achieve personalized Precision Medicine. Here we overview currently available resources and discuss future prospects.