Effect of a misspecification of response rates on type I and type II errors, in a phase II Simon design

A randomized Bayesian optimal phase II design with binary endpoint

In this paper, we propose a randomized Bayesian optimal phase II (RBOP2) design with a binary endpoint (e.g., response rate). A beta-binomial distribution is used to model the binary endpoint for a two-arm phase II trial. Posterior probabilities of the endpoint of interest are evaluated at each interim look and used in the decision to stop the trial due to futility. Compared with other Bayesian designs, the proposed RBOP2 design has the following merits: (i) strongly controls the type I error rate at a pre-defined level; (ii) optimizes the stopping boundaries, thus maximizing the power to detect treatment effects and minimizing the expected sample size for futile treatment; (iii) does not limit the number of interim looks, thus enabling frequent trial monitoring; and (iv) allows the stopping boundaries to be pre-defined in the protocol and is easy to implement. We conduct simulation studies to compare the proposed design with a group sequential design and other Bayesian randomized designs and evaluate its operating characteristics under different scenarios.

Early-phase clinical trial eligibility and response evaluation criteria for refractory, relapsed, or progressive neuroblastoma: A consensus statement from the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting

BACKGROUND

International standardized criteria for eligibility, evaluable disease sites, and disease response assessment in patients with refractory, progressive, or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma enrolled in early-phase clinical trials are lacking.

METHODS

A National Cancer Institute-sponsored Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was convened to develop an international consensus to refine the tumor site eligibility criteria and evaluation of disease response for early-phase clinical trials in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

RESULTS

Standardized data collection of patient and disease characteristics (including specified genomic data), eligibility criteria, a definition of evaluable disease, and response evaluations for primary and metastatic sites of disease were developed. Eligibility included two distinct patient groups: progressive disease and refractory disease. The refractory disease group was subdivided into responding persistent disease and stable persistent disease to better capture the clinical heterogeneity of refractory neuroblastoma. Requirements for defining disease evaluable for a response assessment were provided; they included requirements for biopsy to confirm viable neuroblastoma and/or ganglioneuroblastoma in those patients with soft tissue or bone disease not avid for iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine. Standardized evaluations for response components and time intervals for response evaluations were established.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of international consensus eligibility, evaluability, and response criteria for early-phase clinical studies will facilitate the collection of comparable data across international trials and promote more rapid identification of effective treatment regimens for high-risk neuroblastoma.

Systematic review of phase-I/II trials enrolling refractory and recurrent Ewing sarcoma: Actual knowledge and future directions to optimize the research

BACKGROUND

Optimal Phase-II design to evaluate new therapies in refractory/relapsed Ewing sarcomas (ES) remains imperfectly defined.

OBJECTIVES

Recurrent/refractory ES phase-I/II trials analysis to improve trials design.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of therapeutic trials registered on five databases (who.int/trialsearch, clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, e-cancer.fr, and umin.ac.jp) and/or published in PubMed/ASCO/ESMO websites, between 2005 and 2018, using the criterion: (Ewing sarcoma OR bone sarcoma OR sarcoma) AND (Phase-I or Phase-II).

RESULTS

The 146 trials identified (77 phase-I/II, 67 phase-II, and 2 phase-II/III) tested targeted (34%), chemo- (23%), immune therapies (19%), or combined therapies (24%). Twenty-three trials were ES specific and 48 had a specific ES stratum. Usually multicentric (88%), few trials were international (30%). Inclusion criteria cover the recurrent ES age range for only 12% of trials and allowed only accrual of measurable diseases (RECIST criteria). Single-arm design was the most frequent (88%) testing mainly single drugs (61%), only 5% were randomized. Primary efficacy outcome was response rate (RR=CR+PR; Complete+Partial response) (n = 116/146; 79%), rarely progression-free or overall survival (16% PFS and 3% OS). H0 and H1 hypotheses were variable (3%-25% and 20%-50%, respectively). The 62 published trials enrolled 827 ES patients. RR was poor (10%; 15 CR=1.7%, 68 PR=8.3%). Stable disease was the best response for 186 patients (25%). Median PFS/OS was of 1.9 (range 1.3-14.7) and 7.6 months (5-30), respectively. Eleven (18%) published trials were considered positive, with median RR/PFS/OS of 15% (7%-30%), 4.5 (1.3-10), and 16.6 months (6.9-30), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This review supports the need to develop the international randomized phase-II trials across all age ranges with PFS as primary endpoint.

Phase II, multi-center, open-label, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil in patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma (ESMMO): rationale and design of the ESMMO trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of patients with osteosarcoma remain unsatisfactory, with little improvement in a 5-year overall survival over the past three decades. There is a substantial need for further research and development to identify and develop more efficacious agents/regimens in order to improve clinical outcomes of patients for whom the prognosis is unfavorable. Recently, mycophenolate mofetil, a prodrug of mycophenolic acid, has been found to have anticancer activity against osteosarcoma in both in vitro and animal experiments, so that further investigation in humans is warranted.

METHODS

A total of 27 patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma will be enrolled into this phase II, multi-center, open-label, single-arm, two-stage clinical trial. The main objectives of this study are to determine the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in the patients. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival at 16 weeks; the secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety parameters, pharmacokinetic parameters, biomarkers, pain score, and quality of life. Mycophenolate mofetil at the initial dose of 5 g/day or lower will be administered for 4 cycles (28 days/cycle) or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dose of mycophenolate mofetil may be reduced by 1-2 g/day or withheld for some Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicities whenever clinically needed. The duration of study participation is approximately 4-5 months, with a minimum of 12 study visits. If mycophenolate mofetil proves beneficial to some patients, as evidenced by stable disease or partial response at 16 weeks, administration of mycophenolate mofetil will continue in the extension period.

DISCUSSION

This trial is the first step in the translation of therapeutic potential of mycophenolate mofetil emerging from in vitro and animal studies into the clinical domain. It is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma. The results will provide important information about whether or not mycophenolate mofetil is worth further development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: TCTR20190701001). The posted information will be updated as needed to reflect protocol amendments and study progress.

A Review of Perspectives on the Use of Randomization in Phase II Oncology Trials

Historically, phase II oncology trials assessed a treatment's efficacy by examining its tumor response rate in a single-arm trial. Then, approximately 25 years ago, certain statistical and pharmacological considerations ignited a debate around whether randomized designs should be used instead. Here, based on an extensive literature review, we review the arguments on either side of this debate. In particular, we describe the numerous factors that relate to the reliance of single-arm trials on historical control data and detail the trial scenarios in which there was general agreement on preferential utilization of single-arm or randomized design frameworks, such as the use of single-arm designs when investigating treatments for rare cancers. We then summarize the latest figures on phase II oncology trial design, contrasting current design choices against historical recommendations on best practice. Ultimately, we find several ways in which the design of recently completed phase II trials does not appear to align with said recommendations. For example, despite advice to the contrary, only 66.2% of the assessed trials that employed progression-free survival as a primary or coprimary outcome used a randomized comparative design. In addition, we identify that just 28.2% of the considered randomized comparative trials came to a positive conclusion as opposed to 72.7% of the single-arm trials. We conclude by describing a selection of important issues influencing contemporary design, framing this discourse in light of current trends in phase II, such as the increased use of biomarkers and recent interest in novel adaptive designs.