Statistical Design and Considerations of a Phase 3 Basket Trial for Simultaneous Investigation of Multiple Tumor Types in One Study

Biomarker-driven basket trial designs: origins and new methodological developments

Due to increased use of gene sequencing techniques, understanding of cancer on a molecular level has evolved, in terms of both diagnosis and evaluation in response to initial therapies. In parallel, clinical trials meant to evaluate molecularly-driven interventions through assessment of both treatment effects and putative predictive biomarker effects are being employed to advance the goals of precision medicine. Basket trials investigate one or more biomarker-targeted therapies across multiple cancer types in a tumor location agnostic fashion. The review article offers an overview of the traditional forms of such designs, the practical challenges facing each type of design, and then review novel adaptations proposed in the last few years, categorized into Bayesian and Classical Frequentist perspectives. The review article concludes by summarizing potential advantages and limitations of the new trial design solutions.

Basket Trials: Past, Present, and Future

Large-scale tumor molecular profiling has revealed that diverse cancer histologies are driven by common pathways with unifying biomarkers that can be exploited therapeutically. Disease-agnostic basket trials have been increasingly utilized to test biomarker-driven therapies across cancer types. These trials have led to drug approvals and improved the lives of patients while simultaneously advancing our understanding of cancer biology. This review focuses on the practicalities of implementing basket trials, with an emphasis on molecularly targeted trials. We examine the biologic subtleties of genomic biomarker and patient selection, discuss previous successes in drug development facilitated by basket trials, describe certain novel targets and drugs, and emphasize practical considerations for participant recruitment and study design. This review also highlights strategies for aiding patient access to basket trials. As basket trials become more common, steps to ensure equitable implementation of these studies will be critical for molecularly targeted drug development.

A win ratio-based framework to combine multiple clinical endpoints in exploratory basket trials

In contemporary exploratory phase of oncology drug development, there has been an increasing interest in evaluating investigational drug or drug combination in multiple tumor indications in a single basket trial to expedite drug development. There has been extensive research on more efficiently borrowing information across tumor indications in early phase drug development including Bayesian hierarchical modeling and the pruning-and-pooling methods. Despite the fact that the Go/No-Go decision for subsequent Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial initiation is almost always a multi-facet consideration, the statistical literature of basket trial design and analysis has largely been limited to a single binary endpoint. In this paper we explore the application of considering clinical priorities of multiple endpoints based on matched win ratio to the basket trial design and analysis. The control arm data will be simulated for each tumor indication based on the corresponding null assumptions that could be heterogeneous across tumor indications. The matched win ratio matching on the tumor indication can be performed for individual tumor indication, pooled data, or the pooled data after pruning depending on whether an individual evaluation or a simple pooling or a pruning-and-pooling method is used. We conduct the simulation studies to evaluate the performance of proposed win ratio-based framework and the results suggest the proposed framework could provide desirable operating characteristics.

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.

Tumor-Agnostic Approvals: Insights and Practical Considerations

Since the first approval of a tumor-agnostic indication in 2017, a total of seven tumor-agnostic indications involving six drugs have received approval from the FDA. In this paper, the master protocol subteam of the Statistical Methods in Oncology Scientific Working Group, Biopharmaceutical Session, American Statistical Association, provides a comprehensive summary of these seven tumor-agnostic approvals, describing their mechanisms of action; biomarker prevalence; study design; companion diagnostics; regulatory aspects, including comparisons of global regulatory requirements; and health technology assessment approval. Also discussed are practical considerations relating to the regulatory approval of tumor-agnostic indications, specifically (i) recommendations for the design stage to mitigate the risk that exceptions may occur if a treatment is initially hypothesized to be effective for all tumor types and (ii) because drug development continues after approval of a tumor-agnostic indication, recommendations for further development of tumor-specific indications in first-line patients in the setting of a randomized confirmatory basket trial, acknowledging the challenges in this area. These recommendations and practical considerations may provide insights for the future development of drugs for tumor-agnostic indications.

A frequentist design for basket trials using adaptive lasso

A basket trial aims to expedite the drug development process by evaluating a new therapy in multiple populations within the same clinical trial. Each population, referred to as a "basket", can be defined by disease type, biomarkers, or other patient characteristics. The objective of a basket trial is to identify the subset of baskets for which the new therapy shows promise. The conventional approach would be to analyze each of the baskets independently. Alternatively, several Bayesian dynamic borrowing methods have been proposed that share data across baskets when responses appear similar. These methods can achieve higher power than independent testing in exchange for a risk of some inflation in the type 1 error rate. In this paper we propose a frequentist approach to dynamic borrowing for basket trials using adaptive lasso. Through simulation studies we demonstrate adaptive lasso can achieve similar power and type 1 error to the existing Bayesian methods. The proposed approach has the benefit of being easier to implement and faster than existing methods. In addition, the adaptive lasso approach is very flexible: it can be extended to basket trials with any number of treatment arms and any type of endpoint.

Bayesian Methods for Information Borrowing in Basket Trials: An Overview

Basket trials allow simultaneous evaluation of a single therapy across multiple cancer types or subtypes of the same cancer. Since the same treatment is tested across all baskets, it may be desirable to borrow information across them to improve the statistical precision and power in estimating and detecting the treatment effects in different baskets. We review recent developments in Bayesian methods for the design and analysis of basket trials, focusing on the mechanism of information borrowing. We explain the common components of these methods, such as a prior model for the treatment effects that embodies an assumption of exchangeability. We also discuss the distinct features of these methods that lead to different degrees of borrowing. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate the impact of information borrowing on the operating characteristics of these methods and discuss its broader implications for drug development. Examples of basket trials are presented in both phase I and phase II settings.

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.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Bayesian local exchangeability design for phase II basket trials

We propose an information borrowing strategy for the design and monitoring of phase II basket trials based on the local multisource exchangeability assumption between baskets (disease types). In our proposed local-MEM framework, information borrowing is only allowed to occur locally, that is, among baskets with similar response rate and the amount of information borrowing is determined by the level of similarity in response rate, whereas baskets not considered similar are not allowed to share information. We construct a two-stage design for phase II basket trials using the proposed strategy. The proposed method is compared to competing Bayesian methods and Simon's two-stage design in a variety of simulation scenarios. We demonstrate the proposed method is able to maintain the family-wise type I error rate at a reasonable level and has desirable basket-wise power compared to Simon's two-stage design. In addition, our method is computationally efficient compared to existing Bayesian methods in that the posterior profiles of interest can be derived explicitly without the need for sampling algorithms. R scripts to implement the proposed method are available at https://github.com/yilinyl/Bayesian-localMEM.

Efficiency of a randomized confirmatory basket trial design constrained to control the family wise error rate by indication

Basket trials pool histologic indications sharing molecular pathophysiology, improving development efficiency. Currently, basket trials have been confirmatory only for exceptional therapies. Our previous randomized basket design may be generally suitable in the resource-intensive confirmatory phase, maintains high power even with modest effect sizes, and provides nearly k-fold increased efficiency for k indications, but controls false positives for the pooled result only. Since family wise error rate by indications may sometimes be required, we now simulate a variant of this basket design controlling family wise error rate at 0.025 k, the total family wise error rate of k separate randomized trials. We simulated this modified design under numerous scenarios varying design parameters. Only designs controlling family wise error rate and minimizing estimation bias were allowable. Optimal performance results when [Formula: see text]. We report efficiency (expected # true positives/expected sample size) relative to k parallel studies, at 90% power (“uncorrected”) or at the power achieved in the basket trial (“corrected,” because conventional designs could also increase efficiency by sacrificing power). Efficiency and power (percentage active indications identified) improve with a higher percentage of initial indications active. Up to 92% uncorrected and 38% corrected efficiency improvement is possible. Even under family wise error rate control, randomized confirmatory basket trials substantially improve development efficiency. Initial indication selection is critical.

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

A basket trial investigates the effects of one drug on multiple tumor indications. To discontinue potentially inactive indications early, interim futility analysis is usually conducted for each indication individually once it reaches the pre-specified sample size. As enrollment rates vary among indications, the futility decisions for slow-enrolling indications could be made much later than other fast-enrolling indications, which could delay the overall decision for the trial significantly. To accelerate the futility decision in early-stage exploratory basket trials and potentially reallocate resources to other compounds earlier while still controlling the global type-I and type-II errors, we propose an optimal two-stage basket trial design with one aggregated futility analysis by aggregating (e.g., pooling) all indications together. The total sample size across all indications is pre-specified for the futility analysis, while the sample size per indication can be adapted to the enrollment rate. The final analysis is performed using the pruning and pooling approach (Chen et al. 2016). The design parameters are optimized by minimizing the expected total sample size under the null hypothesis, while explicitly controlling the global type-I and the type-II error rates. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed design has better operating characteristics than the designs with individual futility analysis (Zhou et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2021), while allowing for earlier futility decision.

Master Protocols for Precision Medicine in Oncology: Overcoming Methodology of Randomized Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials are considered the milestones of clinical research in oncology, and guided the development and approval of new compounds so far. In the last few years, however, molecular and genomic profiling led to a change of paradigm in therapeutic algorithms of many cancer types, with the spread of different biomarker-driven therapies (or targeted therapies). This scenario of "personalized medicine" revolutionized therapeutic strategies and the methodology of the supporting clinical research. New clinical trial designs are emerging to answer to the unmet clinical needs related to the development of these targeted therapies, overcoming the "classical" structure of randomized studies. Innovative trial designs able to evaluate more than one treatment in the same group of patients or many groups of patients with the same treatment (or both) are emerging as a possible future standard in clinical trial methodology. These are identified as "master protocols", and include umbrella, basket and platform trials. In this review, we described the main characteristics of these new trial designs, focusing on the opportunities and limitations of their use in the era of personalized medicine.

Optimal one-stage design and analysis for efficacy expansion in Phase I oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Contemporary Phase I oncology trials often include efficacy expansion in various tumor indications post dose finding. Preliminary anti-tumor activity from efficacy expansion can aid Go/No-Go decision for Phase 2 or Phase 3 initiation. Tumor cohorts in efficacy expansion are commonly analyzed independently in practice, which are often underpowered due to small sample size. Pooled analysis is also sometimes conducted, but it ignores the heterogeneity of the anti-tumor activity across cohorts.

METHODS

We propose an optimal one-stage design and analysis strategy for the efficacy expansion to assess whether the treatment is effective. Allowing heterogeneous anti-tumor effects across tumor cohorts, inactive cohorts are pruned, and the potentially active cohorts are pooled together to gain study power. For a prospective design with a target power, the total sample size across all cohorts is minimized; or for an ad hoc analysis with pre-specified sample size for each cohort, the pruning criteria are optimized to achieve maximum power. The global type I error is controlled after proper multiplicity adjustment, and a penalty adjusted significance level is used for the pooled test.

RESULTS

Simulation studies show that the proposed optimal design has desirable operating characteristics in increasing the overall power and detecting more true positive tumor cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The proposed optimal design and analysis strategy provides a practical approach to design and analyze heterogeneous efficacy expansion cohorts in a basket setting with global type I and type II error being controlled.

Basket clinical trial design for targeted therapies for cancer: a French National Authority for Health statement for health technology assessment

During the past decade, health technology assessment bodies have faced new challenges in establishing the benefits of new drugs for individuals and health-care systems. A topic of increasing importance to the field of oncology is the so-called agnostic regulatory approval of targeted therapies for cancer (independent of tumour location and histology) granted on the basis of basket trials. Basket trials in oncology offer the advantage of simultaneously evaluating treatments for multiple tumours, even rare cancers, in a single clinical trial. To address the novel challenges introduced by these trials, an interdisciplinary panel was convened on behalf of the Transparency Committee of the French National Authority for Health to clarify an approach designed to guarantee a transparent, reproducible, and fair assessment of histology-agnostic treatments for reimbursement by the French National Health Insurance Fund. The requirements of this approach include the need for randomisation, clinically relevant endpoints, appropriate correction for multiple significance testing, characterisation of subgroup heterogeneity, and validation of underlying biomarker assays. A prospectively designated external control is encouraged when the implementation of a direct comparison is deemed infeasible. We also underline the importance of recording outcomes from basket trials in a registry for use as future external controls.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Master Protocol Framework: Basket, Umbrella and Platform Trials

Master protocol, categorized as basket trial, umbrella trial or platform trial, is an innovative clinical trial framework that aims to expedite clinical drug development, enhance trial efficiency, and eventually bring medicines to patients faster. Despite a clear uptake on the advantages in the concepts and designs, master protocols are still yet to be widely used. Part of that may be due to the fact that the master protocol framework comes with the need for new statistical designs and considerations for analyses and operational challenges. In this article, we provide an overview of the master protocol framework, unify the definitions with some examples, review the statistical methods for the designs and analyses, and focus our discussions on some practical considerations and recommendations of master protocols to help practitioners better design and implement such studies.

Categories, components, and techniques in a modular construction of basket trials for application and further research

Basket trials have become a virulent topic in medical and statistical research during the last decade. The core idea of them is to treat patients, who express the same genetic predisposition-either personally or their disease-with the same treatment irrespective of the location of the disease. The location of the disease defines each basket and the pathway of the treatment uses the common genetic predisposition among the baskets. This opens the opportunity to share information among baskets, which can consequently increase the information of the basket-wise response with respect to the investigated treatment. This further allows dynamic decisions regarding futility and efficacy of individual baskets during the ongoing trial. Several statistical designs have been proposed on how a basket trial can be conducted and this has left an unclear situation with many options. The different designs propose different mathematical and statistical techniques, different decision rules, and also different trial purposes. This paper presents a broad overview of existing designs, categorizes them, and elaborates their similarities and differences. A uniform and consistent notation facilitates the first contact, introduction, and understanding of the statistical methodologies and techniques used in basket trials. Finally, this paper presents a modular approach for the construction of basket trials in applied medical science and forms a base for further research of basket trial designs and their techniques.

Bayesian methods for the analysis of early-phase oncology basket trials with information borrowing across cancer types

Research in oncology has changed the focus from histological properties of tumors in a specific organ to a specific genomic aberration potentially shared by multiple cancer types. This motivates the basket trial, which assesses the efficacy of treatment simultaneously on multiple cancer types that have a common aberration. Although the assumption of homogeneous treatment effects seems reasonable given the shared aberration, in reality, the treatment effect may vary by cancer type, and potentially only a subgroup of the cancer types respond to the treatment. Various approaches have been proposed to increase the trial power by borrowing information across cancer types, which, however, tend to inflate the type I error rate. In this article, we review some representative Bayesian information borrowing methods for the analysis of early-phase basket trials. We then propose a novel method called the Bayesian hierarchical model with a correlated prior (CBHM), which conducts more flexible borrowing across cancer types according to sample similarity. We did simulation studies to compare CBHM with independent analysis and three information borrowing approaches: the conventional Bayesian hierarchical model, the EXNEX approach, and Liu's two-stage approach. Simulation results show that all information borrowing approaches substantially improve the power of independent analysis if a large proportion of the cancer types truly respond to the treatment. Our proposed CBHM approach shows an advantage over the existing information borrowing approaches, with a power similar to that of EXNEX or Liu's approach, but the potential to provide substantially better control of type I error rate.

Histology-agnostic drug development - considering issues beyond the tissue

With advances in tumour biology and immunology that continue to refine our understanding of cancer, therapies are now being developed to treat cancers on the basis of specific molecular alterations and markers of immune phenotypes that transcend specific tumour histologies. With the landmark approvals of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients whose tumours have high microsatellite instability and larotrectinib and entrectinib for those harbouring NTRK fusions, a regulatory pathway has been created to facilitate the approval of histology-agnostic indications. Negative results presented in the past few years, however, highlight the intrinsic complexities faced by drug developers pursuing histology-agnostic therapeutic agents. When patient selection and statistical analysis involve multiple potentially heterogeneous histologies, guidance is needed to navigate the challenges posed by trial design. Additionally, as new therapeutic agents are tested and post-approval data become available, the regulatory framework for acting on these data requires further optimization. In this Review, we summarize the development and testing of approved histology-agnostic therapeutic agents and present data on other agents currently under development. Finally, we discuss the challenges intrinsic to histology-agnostic drug development in oncology, including biological, regulatory, design and statistical considerations.

Basket Designs: Statistical Considerations for Oncology Trials

Progress in the areas of genomics, disease pathways, and drug discovery has advanced into clinical and translational cancer research. The latest innovations in clinical trials have followed with master protocols, which are defined by inclusive eligibility criteria and devised to interrogate multiple therapies for a given tumor histology and/or multiple histologies for a given therapy under one protocol. The use of master protocols for oncology has become more common with the desire to improve the efficiency of clinical research and accelerate overall drug development. Basket trials have been devised to ascertain the extent to which a treatment strategy offers benefit to various patient subpopulations defined by a common molecular target. Conventionally conducted within the phase II setting, basket designs have become popular as drug developers seek to effectively evaluate and identify preliminary efficacy signals among clinical indications identified as promising in preclinical study. This article reviews basket trial designs in oncology settings and discusses several issues that arise with their design and analysis.

Optimal two-stage designs for exploratory basket trials

The primary goal of an exploratory oncology clinical trial is to identify an effective drug for further development. To account for tumor indication selection error, multiple tumor indications are often selected for simultaneous testing in a basket trial. In this article, we propose optimal and minimax two-stage basket trial designs for exploratory clinical trials. Inactive tumor indications are pruned in stage 1 and the active tumor indications are pooled at end of stage 2 to assess overall effectiveness of the test drug. The proposed designs explicitly control the type I and type II error rates with closed-form sample size formula. They can be viewed as a natural extension of Simon's optimal and minimax two-stage designs for single arm trials to multi-arm basket trials. A simulation study shows that the proposed design method has desirable operating characteristics as compared to other commonly used design methods for exploratory basket trials.

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs

In oncology, next generation sequencing and comprehensive genomic profiling have enabled the detailed classification of tumors using molecular biology. However, it is unrealistic to conduct phase I-III trials according to each sub-population based on patient molecular subtypes. Common protocols that assess the combination of several molecular markers and their targeted therapies by means of multiple sub-studies are required. These protocols are called "master protocols," and are drawing attention as a next-generation clinical trial design. Recently, several reviews of clinical trials based on the master protocol design have been published, but their definitions of these such trials, including basket, umbrella, and platform trials, were not consistent. Concurrently, the acceleration of the development of new statistical designs for master protocol trials has been underway. This article provides an overview of recent reviews for master protocols, including their statistical design methodologies in Oncology. We also introduce several examples of previous and on-going master protocol trials along with their classifications by some recent studies.

A 2-in-1 adaptive phase 2/3 design for expedited oncology drug development

We propose an adaptive design that allows us to expand an ongoing Phase 2 trial into a Phase 3 trial to expedite a drug development program with fewer patients. Rather than the usual practice of increasing sample size with a less positive interim outcome, here we propose maintaining sample size with such a result and wait for fully mature data. The final Phase 2 data may be negative, may warrant a larger Phase 3 trial, or, in the extreme, could provide a definitively positive outcome. If the interim outcome is more positive, the trial continues to an originally planned larger sample size for a definitive Phase 3 evaluation. All patients from the study are used for inference regardless of the interim expansion decision. We show that no penalty needs to be paid in order to control the overall Type I error of the study, under a mild assumption that is expected to generally hold in practice. The proposed design may be considered an alternative approach to sample size adjustment for ongoing trials. As such, the use of an intermediate endpoint for adaptive decision is a unique feature of the design. A hypothetical example is provided for illustration purpose.

Increasing the efficiency of oncology basket trials using a Bayesian approach

With the rapid growth of targeted and immune-oncology therapies, novel statistical design approaches are needed to increase the flexibility and efficiency of early phase oncology trials. Basket trials enroll patients with defined biological deficiencies, but with multiple histologic tumor types (or indications), to discover in which indications the drug is active. In such designs different indications are typically analyzed independently. This, however, ignores potential biological similarities among the indications. Our research provides a statistical methodology to enhance such basket trials by assessing the homogeneity of the response rates among indications at an interim analysis, and applying a Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach in the second stage if the efficacy is deemed reasonably homogenous across indications. This increases the power of the study by allowing indications with similar response rates to borrow information from each other. Via simulations, we quantify the efficiency gain of our proposed approach relative to the conventional parallel approach. The operating characteristics of our method depend on the similarity of the response rates between the different indications. If the response rates are comparable in most or all indications after treatment with the investigational drug, a substantial increase in efficiency as compared to the conventional approach can be obtained as fewer patients are required or a higher power is attained. We also demonstrate that efficacy again decreases if the response rates vary considerably among tumor types but it is still better than the conventional approach.

Adaptive designs: The Swiss Army knife among clinical trial designs?

There has been considerable progress in the development and implementation of adaptive designs over the past 30 years. A major driver for this class of novel designs is the possibility to increase the information value of clinical trial data to enable better decisions, leading to more efficient drug development processes and improved late-stage success rates. In the first part of this article, we review the development of adaptive designs from different perspectives. We trace back key historical papers, report on landmark adaptive design clinical trials, review major cross-industry collaborations, and highlight key regulatory guidance documents. In the second, more technical part of this article, we address the question of whether it is possible to define factors which guide the choice between a fixed or an adaptive design for a given trial. We show that in non-linear regression models with a moderate variance of the responses, the first-stage sample size of an adaptive design should be chosen sufficiently large in order to address variability in the interim parameter estimate. In conclusion, the choice between an adaptive and a fixed design depends in a sensitive manner on the specific statistical problem under investigation.

Estimation of treatment effect in two-stage confirmatory oncology trials of personalized medicines

A personalized medicine may benefit a subpopulation with certain predictive biomarker signatures or certain disease types. However, there is great uncertainty about drug activity in a subpopulation when designing a confirmatory trial in practice, and it is logical to take a two-stage approach with the study unless credible external information is available for decision-making purpose. The first stage deselects (or prunes) non-performing subpopulations at an interim analysis, and the second stage pools the remaining subpopulations in the final analysis. The endpoints used at the two stages can be different in general. A key issue of interest is the statistical property of the test statistics and point estimate at the final analysis. Previous research has focused on type I error control and power calculation for such two-stage designs. This manuscript will investigate estimation bias of the treatment effect, which is implicit in the adjustment of nominal type I error for multiplicity control in such two-stage designs. Previous work handles the treatment effect of an intermediate endpoint as a nuisance parameter to provide the most conservative type I error control. This manuscript takes the same approach to explore the bias. The methodology is applied to the two previously studied designs. In the first design, patients with different biomarker levels are enrolled in a study, and the treatment effect is assumed to be in an order. The goal of the interim analysis is to identify a biomarker cut-off point for the subpopulations. In the second design, patients with different tumour types but the same biomarker signature are included in a trial applying a basket design. The goal of the interim analysis is to identify a subset of tumour types in the absence of treatment effect ordering. Closed-form equations are provided for the estimation bias as well as the variance under the two designs. Simulations are conducted under various scenarios to validate the analytic results that demonstrated that the bias can be properly estimated in practice. Worked examples are presented. Extensions to general adaptive designs and operational considerations are discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.