Bayesian adaptive basket trial design using model averaging

Leveraging information from secondary endpoints to enhance dynamic borrowing across subpopulations

Randomized trials seek efficient treatment effect estimation within target populations, yet scientific interest often also centers on subpopulations. Although there are typically too few subjects within each subpopulation to efficiently estimate these subpopulation treatment effects, one can gain precision by borrowing strength across subpopulations, as is the case in a basket trial. While dynamic borrowing has been proposed as an efficient approach to estimating subpopulation treatment effects on primary endpoints, additional efficiency could be gained by leveraging the information found in secondary endpoints. We propose a multisource exchangeability model (MEM) that incorporates secondary endpoints to more efficiently assess subpopulation exchangeability. Across simulation studies, our proposed model almost uniformly reduces the mean squared error when compared to the standard MEM that only considers data from the primary endpoint by gaining efficiency when subpopulations respond similarly to the treatment and reducing the magnitude of bias when the subpopulations are heterogeneous. We illustrate our model's feasibility using data from a recently completed trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes to estimate the effect on abstinence from smoking within three priority subpopulations. Our proposed model led to increases in the effective sample size two to four times greater than under the standard MEM.

Assessing the hierarchical beta-binomial model as a basic information sharing tool in basket trials

The majority of statistical methods to share information in basket trials are based on a Bayesian hierarchical model with a common normal distribution for the logit-transformed response rates. The methods are of varying complexity, yet they all use this basic model. Generally, complexity is an obstacle for the application in clinical trials and that includes the use of the logit-transformation. The transformation complicates the model and impedes a direct interpretation of the hyperparameters. On the other hand, there exist basket trial designs which directly work on the probability scale of the response rate which facilitates the understanding of the model for many stakeholders. In order to reduce unnecessary complexity, we considered using a hierarchical beta-binomial model instead of the transformed models. This article investigates whether this approach is a practicable alternative to the commonly applied sharing tools based on a logit-transformation of the response rates. For this purpose, we performed a systematic comparison of the two models, starting with the distributional assumptions for the response rates, continuing with the Bayesian behavior together with binomial data in an independent setting and ended with a simulation study for the hierarchical model under various data and prior scenarios. All Bayesian comparisons require equal starting points, wherefore we propose a calibration procedure to choose similar priors for the models. The evaluation of the sharing property additionally required an evaluation measure for simulation results, which we derived in this work. The conclusion of the comparison is that the hierarchical beta-binomial model is a feasible alternative basic model to share information in basket trials.

New clinical trial design borrowing information across patient subgroups based on fusion-penalized regression models

In cancer research, basket trials aim to assess the efficacy of a drug using baskets, wherein patients are organized into subgroups according to their tumor type. In this context, using information borrowing strategy may increase the probability of detecting drug efficacy in active baskets, by shrinking together the estimates of the parameters characterizing the drug efficacy in baskets with similar drug activity. Here, we propose to use fusion-penalized logistic regression models to borrow information in the setting of a phase 2 single-arm basket trial with binary outcome. We describe our proposed strategy and assess its performance via a simulation study. We assessed the impact of heterogeneity in drug efficacy, prevalence of each tumor types and implementation of interim analyses on the operating characteristics of our proposed design. We compared our approach with two existing designs, relying on the specification of prior information in a Bayesian framework to borrow information across similar baskets. Notably, our approach performed well when the effect of the drug varied greatly across the baskets. Our approach offers several advantages, including limited implementation efforts and fast computation, which is essential when planning a new trial as such planning requires intensive simulation studies.

Bayesian joint models for multi-regional clinical trials

In recent years, multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) have increased in popularity in the pharmaceutical industry due to their ability to accelerate the global drug development process. To address potential challenges with MRCTs, the International Council for Harmonisation released the E17 guidance document which suggests the use of statistical methods that utilize information borrowing across regions if regional sample sizes are small. We develop an approach that allows for information borrowing via Bayesian model averaging in the context of a joint analysis of survival and longitudinal data from MRCTs. In this novel application of joint models to MRCTs, we use Laplace's method to integrate over subject-specific random effects and to approximate posterior distributions for region-specific treatment effects on the time-to-event outcome. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that the joint modeling approach can result in an increased rejection rate when testing the global treatment effect compared with methods that analyze survival data alone. We then apply the proposed approach to data from a cardiovascular outcomes MRCT.

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.

Adaptive Bayesian information borrowing methods for finding and optimizing subgroup-specific doses

In precision oncology, integrating multiple cancer patient subgroups into a single master protocol allows for the simultaneous assessment of treatment effects in these subgroups and promotes the sharing of information between them, ultimately reducing sample sizes and costs and enhancing scientific validity. However, the safety and efficacy of these therapies may vary across different subgroups, resulting in heterogeneous outcomes. Therefore, identifying subgroup-specific optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is crucial for the development of future trials. In this article, we review various innovative Bayesian information-borrowing strategies that aim to determine and optimize subgroup-specific doses. Specifically, we discuss Bayesian hierarchical modeling, Bayesian clustering, Bayesian model averaging or selection, pairwise borrowing, and other relevant approaches. By employing these Bayesian information-borrowing methods, investigators can gain a better understanding of the intricate relationships between dose, toxicity, and efficacy in each subgroup. This increased understanding significantly improves the chances of identifying an optimal dose tailored to each specific subgroup. Furthermore, we present several practical recommendations to guide the design of future early-phase oncology trials involving multiple subgroups when using the Bayesian information-borrowing methods.

A Bayesian platform trial design with hybrid control based on multisource exchangeability modelling

Enrolling patients to the standard of care (SOC) arm in randomized clinical trials, especially for rare diseases, can be very challenging due to the lack of resources, restricted patient population availability, and ethical considerations. As the therapeutic effect for the SOC is often well documented in historical trials, we propose a Bayesian platform trial design with hybrid control based on the multisource exchangeability modelling (MEM) framework to harness historical control data. The MEM approach provides a computationally efficient method to formally evaluate the exchangeability of study outcomes between different data sources and allows us to make better informed data borrowing decisions based on the exchangeability between historical and concurrent data. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the proposed hybrid design. We demonstrate the proposed design leads to significant sample size reduction for the internal control arm and borrows more information compared to competing Bayesian approaches when historical and internal data are compatible.

rBMA: A robust Bayesian Model Averaging Method for phase II basket trials based on informative mixture priors

Oncology drug research in the last few decades has been driven by the development of targeted agents. In the era of targeted therapies, basket trials are often used to test the antitumor activity of a novel treatment in multiple indications sharing the same genomic alteration. As patient population are further fragmented into biomarker-defined subgroups in basket trials, novel statistical methods are needed to facilitate cross-indication learning to improve the statistical power in basket trial design. Here we propose a robust Bayesian model averaging (rBMA) technique for the design and analysis of phase II basket trials. We consider the posterior distribution of each indication (basket) as the weighted average of three different models which only differ in their priors (enthusiastic, pessimistic and non-informative). The posterior weights of these models are determined based on the effect of the experimental treatment in all the indications tested. In early phase oncology trials, different binary endpoints might be chosen for different indications (objective response, disease control or PFS at landmark times), which makes it even more challenging to borrow information across indications. Compared to previous approaches, the proposed method has the flexibility to support cross-indication learning in the presence of mixed endpoints. We evaluate and compare the performance of the proposed rBMA approach to competing approaches in simulation studies. R scripts to implement the proposed method are available at https://github.com/xwang317/rBMA.

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.

A generalized calibrated Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach to basket trials with multiple endpoints

A basket trial simultaneously evaluates a treatment in multiple cancer subtypes, offering an effective way to accelerate drug development in multiple indications. Many basket trials are designed and monitored based on a single efficacy endpoint, primarily the tumor response. For molecular targeted or immunotherapy agents, however, a single efficacy endpoint cannot adequately characterize the treatment effect. It is increasingly important to use more complex endpoints to comprehensively assess the risk-benefit profile of such targeted therapies. We extend the calibrated Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach to monitor phase II basket trials with multiple endpoints. We propose two generalizations, one based on the latent variable approach and the other based on the multinomial-normal hierarchical model, to accommodate different types of endpoints and dependence assumptions regarding information sharing. We introduce shrinkage parameters as functions of statistics measuring homogeneity among subgroups and propose a general calibration approach to determine the functional forms. Theoretical properties of the generalized hierarchical models are investigated. Simulation studies demonstrate that the monitoring procedure based on the generalized approach yields desirable operating characteristics.

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.

Generalized triple outcome decision-making in basket trials

Making the go/no-go decision is critical in Phase II (or Ib) clinical trials. The conventional decision-making framework based on a binary hypothesis testing has been gradually replaced by the TODeM (Triple Outcome Decision-Making) which has three zones of outcomes: go, no-go, and consider. The TODeM provides more flexibility in decision-making with considering both of statistical significance and clinical relevance. However, Bayesian methods (e.g. EXNEX, MUCE, etc.) for the information borrowing are still based on the binary decision-making framework. We propose a new decision-making process G-TODeM (Generalized Triple Outcome Decision-Making) to apply those Bayesian methods with information borrowing across different cohorts to the TODeM framework. Essentially, the information borrowed from other cohorts can shrink the consider zone of the inference cohort.

Bayesian design of multi-regional clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints

Sponsors often rely on multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) to introduce new treatments more rapidly into the global market. Many commonly used statistical methods do not account for regional differences, and small regional sample sizes frequently result in lower estimation quality of region-specific treatment effects. The International Council for Harmonization E17 guidelines suggest consideration of methods that allow for information borrowing across regions to improve estimation. In response to these guidelines, we develop a novel methodology to estimate global and region-specific treatment effects from MRCTs with time-to-event endpoints using Bayesian model averaging (BMA). This approach accounts for the possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects between regions, and we discuss how to assess the consistency of these effects using posterior model probabilities. We obtain posterior samples of the treatment effects using a Laplace approximation, and we show through simulation studies that the proposed modeling approach estimates region-specific treatment effects with lower mean squared error than a Cox proportional hazards model while resulting in a similar rejection rate of the global treatment effect. We then apply the BMA approach to data from the LEADER trial, an MRCT designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of an anti-diabetic treatment.

Frequentist analysis of basket trials with one-sample Mantel-Haenszel procedures

Recent substantial advances of molecular targeted oncology drug development is requiring new paradigms for early-phase clinical trial methodologies to enable us to evaluate efficacy of several subtypes simultaneously and efficiently. The concept of the basket trial is getting of much attention to realize this requirement borrowing information across subtypes, which are called baskets. Bayesian approach is a natural approach to this end and indeed the majority of the existing proposals relies on it. On the other hand, it required complicated modeling and may not necessarily control the type 1 error probabilities at the nominal level. In this article, we develop a purely frequentist approach for basket trials based on one-sample Mantel-Haenszel procedure relying on a very simple idea for borrowing information under the common treatment effect assumption over baskets. We show that the proposed Mantel-Haenszel estimator for the treatment effect is consistent under two limiting models of the large strata and sparse data limiting models (dually consistent) and propose dually consistent variance estimators. The proposed estimators are interpretable even if the common treatment effect assumptions are violated. Then, we can design basket trials in a confirmatory matter. We also propose an information criterion approach to identify effective subclasses of baskets.

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.

A comparison of Bayesian information borrowing methods in basket trials and a novel proposal of modified exchangeability-nonexchangeability method

Recent innovation in trial design to improve study efficiency has led to the development of basket trials in which a single therapeutic treatment is tested on several patient populations, each of which forms a basket. In a common setting, patients across all baskets share a genetic marker and as such, an assumption can be made that all patients may have a homogeneous response to treatments. Bayesian information borrowing procedures utilize this assumption to draw on information regarding the response in one basket when estimating the response rate in others. This can improve power and precision of estimates particularly in the presence of small sample sizes, however, can come at a cost of biased estimates and an inflation of error rates, bringing into question validity of trial conclusions. We review and compare the performance of several Bayesian borrowing methods, namely: the Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM), calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model (CBHM), exchangeability-nonexchangeability (EXNEX) model and a Bayesian model averaging procedure. A generalization of the CBHM is made to account for unequal sample sizes across baskets. We also propose a modification of the EXNEX model that allows for better control of a type I error. The proposed method uses a data-driven approach to account for the homogeneity of the response data, measured through Hellinger distances. Through an extensive simulation study motivated by a real basket trial, for both equal and unequal sample sizes across baskets, we show that in the presence of a basket with a heterogeneous response, unlike the other methods discussed, this model can control type I error rates to a nominal level whilst yielding improved power.

Bayesian sample size determination in basket trials borrowing information between subsets

Basket trials are increasingly used for the simultaneous evaluation of a new treatment in various patient subgroups under one overarching protocol. We propose a Bayesian approach to sample size determination in basket trials that permit borrowing of information between commensurate subsets. Specifically, we consider a randomized basket trial design where patients are randomly assigned to the new treatment or control within each trial subset ("subtrial" for short). Closed-form sample size formulae are derived to ensure that each subtrial has a specified chance of correctly deciding whether the new treatment is superior to or not better than the control by some clinically relevant difference. Given prespecified levels of pairwise (in)commensurability, the subtrial sample sizes are solved simultaneously. The proposed Bayesian approach resembles the frequentist formulation of the problem in yielding comparable sample sizes for circumstances of no borrowing. When borrowing is enabled between commensurate subtrials, a considerably smaller trial sample size is required compared to the widely implemented approach of no borrowing. We illustrate the use of our sample size formulae with two examples based on real basket trials. A comprehensive simulation study further shows that the proposed methodology can maintain the true positive and false positive rates at desired levels.

Evolution of Phase II Oncology Trial Design: from Single Arm to Master Protocol

The recent development of novel anticancer treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has accelerated the detection of treatment candidates tremendously. The rapidly changing drug development landscapes and the high failure rates in Phase III trials both underscore the importance of more efficient and robust phase II designs. The goals of phase II oncology studies are to explore the preliminary efficacy and toxicity of the investigational product and to inform future drug development strategies such as go/no-go decisions for phase III development, or dose/indication selection. These complex purposes of phase II oncology designs call for efficient, flexible, and easy-to-implement clinical trial designs. Therefore, innovative adaptive study designs with the potential of improving the efficiency of the study, protecting patients, and improving the quality of information gained from trials have been commonly used in Phase II oncology studies. Although the value of adaptive clinical trial methods in early phase drug development is generally well accepted, there is no comprehensive review and guidance on adaptive design methods and their best practice for phase II oncology trials. In this paper, we review the recent development and evolution of phase II oncology design, including frequentist multistage design, Bayesian continuous monitoring, master protocol design, and innovative design methods for randomized phase II studies. The practical considerations and the implementation of these complex design methods are also discussed.

Practical basket design for binary outcomes with control of family-wise error rate

BACKGROUND

A basket trial is a type of clinical trial in which eligibility is based on the presence of specific molecular characteristics across subpopulations with different cancer types. The existing basket designs with Bayesian hierarchical models often improve the efficiency of evaluating therapeutic effects; however, these models calibrate the type I error rate based on the results of simulation studies under various selected scenarios. The theoretical control of family-wise error rate (FWER) is important for decision-making regarding drug approval.

METHODS

In this study, we propose a new Bayesian two-stage design with one interim analysis for controlling FWER at the target level, along with the formulations of type I and II error rates. Since the difficulty lies in the complexity of the theoretical formulation of the type I error rate, we devised the simulation-based method to approximate the type I error rate.

RESULTS

The proposed design enabled adjustment of the cutoff value to control the FWER at the target value in the final analysis. The simulation studies demonstrated that the proposed design can be used to control the well-approximated FWER below the target value even in situations where the number of enrolled patients differed among subpopulations.

CONCLUSIONS

The accrual number of patients is sometimes unable to reach the pre-defined value; therefore, existing basket designs may not ensure defined operating characteristics before beginning the trial. The proposed design that enables adjustment of the cutoff value to control FWER at the target value based on the results in the final analysis would be a better alternative.

Bayesian modelling strategies for borrowing of information in randomised basket trials

Basket trials are an innovative precision medicine clinical trial design evaluating a single targeted therapy across multiple diseases that share a common characteristic. To date, most basket trials have been conducted in early-phase oncology settings, for which several Bayesian methods permitting information sharing across subtrials have been proposed. With the increasing interest of implementing randomised basket trials, information borrowing could be exploited in two ways; considering the commensurability of either the treatment effects or the outcomes specific to each of the treatment groups between the subtrials. In this article, we extend a previous analysis model based on distributional discrepancy for borrowing over the subtrial treatment effects ('treatment effect borrowing', TEB) to borrowing over the subtrial groupwise responses ('treatment response borrowing', TRB). Simulation results demonstrate that both modelling strategies provide substantial gains over an approach with no borrowing. TRB outperforms TEB especially when subtrial sample sizes are small on all operational characteristics, while the latter has considerable gains in performance over TRB when subtrial sample sizes are large, or the treatment effects and groupwise mean responses are noticeably heterogeneous across subtrials. Further, we notice that TRB, and TEB can potentially lead to different conclusions in the analysis of real data.

Challenges and opportunities in biomarker-driven trials: adaptive randomization

In an era of precision medicine, as advanced technology such as molecular profiling at individual patient level has been developed and become increasingly accessible and affordable, biomarker-driven trials have been received a lot of attention and are expected to receive more attention in order to integrate clinical practice with clinical research. Biomarkers play a critical role to identify patients who are expected to get benefit from a treatment, and it is important to effectively incorporate the biomarkers into clinical trials to understand the biomarker-treatment relationship and increase the efficiency. We investigate incorporating biomarkers in adaptive randomization to identify patients who would respond better to the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. The covariate-adjusted variants of the existing response-adaptive randomization are used to implement biomarker-driven randomization, and the performance of the biomarker-driven randomization is compared with the existing randomization methods, such as traditional fixed randomization with equal probability and response-adaptive randomization without incorporating biomarkers, under the group sequential design allowing early stopping due to superiority and futility. Various scenarios are taken into account to see the impact of the biomarker-driven randomization in the simulation study. It shows that the overall type I error rate is likely to be inflated by the effect of prognostic biomarkers. Several suggestions and considerations for the challenges are discussed to maintain the type I error rate at the nominal level.

Regulatory issues and the potential use of Bayesian approaches for early drug approval systems in Japan

Bayesian methods quantify and interpret the therapeutic effects of investigational drugs based on probability statements of the posterior distribution. However, the basic principle underlying the use of Bayesian methods in registration trials for new drug applications in Japan has not been adequately discussed. Motivated by the two drug approval systems for early approval recently enacted in Japan, we present our perspectives on the application of the Bayesian approach in registration trials in Japan. These are based on discussions among academic, industry, and regulatory experts at invited workshops. Based on the aforementioned early approval systems, we discuss putative common regulatory issues related to the use of the Bayesian approach and introduce instances of clinical trials in which the Bayesian approach is expected to be used. This article provides a well-defined premise for the discussion between industry and regulatory agencies on the use of Bayesian approaches for early drug approval in Japan.

RoBoT: a robust Bayesian hypothesis testing method for basket trials

A basket trial in oncology encompasses multiple "baskets" that simultaneously assess one treatment in multiple cancer types or subtypes. It is well-recognized that hierarchical modeling methods, which adaptively borrow strength across baskets, can improve over simple pooling and stratification. We propose a novel Bayesian method, RoBoT (Robust Bayesian Hypothesis Testing), for the data analysis and decision-making in phase II basket trials. In contrast to most existing methods that use posterior credible intervals to determine the efficacy of the new treatment, RoBoT builds upon a formal Bayesian hypothesis testing framework that leads to interpretable and robust inference. Specifically, we assume that the baskets belong to several latent subgroups, and within each subgroup, the treatment has similar probabilities of being more efficacious than controls, historical, or concurrent. The number of latent subgroups and subgroup memberships are inferred by the data through a Dirichlet process mixture model. Such model specification helps avoid type I error inflation caused by excessive shrinkage under typical hierarchical models. The operating characteristics of RoBoT are assessed through computer simulations and are compared with existing methods. Finally, we apply RoBoT to data from two recent phase II basket trials of imatinib and vemurafenib, respectively.

Innovative trial approaches in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: current use and future potential

BACKGROUND

Despite progress that has been made in the treatment of many immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), there remains a need for improved treatments. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest form of evidence on the effectiveness of a potential new treatment regimen, but they are extremely expensive and time consuming to conduct. Consequently, much focus has been given in recent years to innovative design and analysis methods that could improve the efficiency of RCTs. In this article, we review the current use and future potential of these methods within the context of IMID trials.

METHODS

We provide a review of several innovative methods that would provide utility in IMID research. These include novel study designs (adaptive trials, Sequential Multi-Assignment Randomised Trials, basket, and umbrella trials) and data analysis methodologies (augmented analyses of composite responder endpoints, using high-dimensional biomarker information to stratify patients, and emulation of RCTs from routinely collected data). IMID trials are now well-placed to embrace innovative methods. For example, well-developed statistical frameworks for adaptive trial design are ready for implementation, whilst the growing availability of historical datasets makes the use of Bayesian methods particularly applicable. To assess whether and how these innovative methods have been used in practice, we conducted a review via PubMed of clinical trials pertaining to any of 51 IMIDs that were published between 2018 and 20 in five high impact factor clinical journals.

RESULTS

Amongst 97 articles included in the review, 19 (19.6%) used an innovative design method, but most of these were relatively straightforward examples of innovative approaches. Only two (2.1%) reported the use of evidence from routinely collected data, cohorts, or biobanks. Eight (9.2%) collected high-dimensional data.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of innovative statistical methodology to IMID trials has the potential to greatly improve efficiency, to generalise and extrapolate trial results, and to further personalise treatment strategies. Currently, such methods are infrequently utilised in practice. New research is required to ensure that IMID trials can benefit from the most suitable methods.

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.

A Bayesian basket trial design accounting for uncertainties of homogeneity and heterogeneity of treatment effect among subpopulations

Basket trials are a recent and innovative approach in oncological clinical trial design. A basket trial is a type of clinical trial for which eligibility is based on the presence of a specific genomic alteration, irrespective of cancer type. Additionally, basket trials are often used to evaluate the response rate of an investigational therapy across several types of cancer. Recently developed statistical methods for evaluating the response rate in basket trials can be generally categorized into two groups: (a) those that account for the degrees of homogeneity/heterogeneity of response rates among subpopulations, and (b) those using borrowed response rate information across subpopulations to improve the statistical efficiency using Bayesian hierarchical models. In this study, we developed a new basket trial design that accounts for the uncertainties of homogeneity and heterogeneity of response rates among subpopulations using the Bayesian model averaging approach. We demonstrated the utility of the proposed method by comparing our approach against other methods for the two methodological groups using simulated and actual data. On an average, the proposed methods offered an intermediate performance between the BHM-weak and BHM-strong methods. The proposed method would be useful for "signal-finding" basket trials without prior information on the treatment effect of an investigational drug, in part because the proposed method does not require specifications regarding prior distributions of homogeneity response rates among subpopulations.

Borrowing of information across patient subgroups in a basket trial based on distributional discrepancy

Basket trials have emerged as a new class of efficient approaches in oncology to evaluate a new treatment in several patient subgroups simultaneously. In this article, we extend the key ideas to disease areas outside of oncology, developing a robust Bayesian methodology for randomized, placebo-controlled basket trials with a continuous endpoint to enable borrowing of information across subtrials with similar treatment effects. After adjusting for covariates, information from a complementary subtrial can be represented into a commensurate prior for the parameter that underpins the subtrial under consideration. We propose using distributional discrepancy to characterize the commensurability between subtrials for appropriate borrowing of information through a spike-and-slab prior, which is placed on the prior precision factor. When the basket trial has at least three subtrials, commensurate priors for point-to-point borrowing are combined into a marginal predictive prior, according to the weights transformed from the pairwise discrepancy measures. In this way, only information from subtrial(s) with the most commensurate treatment effect is leveraged. The marginal predictive prior is updated to a robust posterior by the contemporary subtrial data to inform decision making. Operating characteristics of the proposed methodology are evaluated through simulations motivated by a real basket trial in chronic diseases. The proposed methodology has advantages compared to other selected Bayesian analysis models, for (i) identifying the most commensurate source of information and (ii) gauging the degree of borrowing from specific subtrials. Numerical results also suggest that our methodology can improve the precision of estimates and, potentially, the statistical power for hypothesis testing.

Bayesian adaptive design for concurrent trials involving biologically related diseases

We develop a Bayesian design method for a clinical program where an investigational product is to be studied concurrently in a set of clinical trials involving related diseases with the goal of demonstrating superiority to a control in each. The approach borrows information on treatment effectiveness using correlated mixture priors using an analysis procedure that is closely related Bayesian model averaging. Mixture priors are constructed by eliciting conjugate priors based on pessimistic and enthusiastic predictions for the data to be observed for each disease and then by eliciting mixture weights for all possible configurations of the pessimistic and enthusiastic priors across the diseases to be studied. The proposed approach provides a robust framework for information borrowing in settings where the diseases may have endpoints based on different data types. We show via simulation that operating characteristics based on the proposed design framework are favorable compared to those based on information borrowing designs using the Bayesian hierarchical model which is poorly suited for information borrowing when there are different data types underpinning the endpoints across which information is to be borrowed.