Biostatistical and Logistical Considerations in the Development of Basket and Umbrella Clinical Trials

Design and analysis of umbrella trials: Where do we stand?

Background

The efficiencies that master protocol designs can bring to modern drug development have seen their increased utilization in oncology. Growing interest has also resulted in their consideration in non-oncology settings. Umbrella trials are one class of master protocol design that evaluates multiple targeted therapies in a single disease setting. Despite the existence of several reviews of master protocols, the statistical considerations of umbrella trials have received more limited attention.

Methods

We conduct a systematic review of the literature on umbrella trials, examining both the statistical methods that are available for their design and analysis, and also their use in practice. We pay particular attention to considerations for umbrella designs applied outside of oncology.

Findings

We identified 38 umbrella trials. To date, most umbrella trials have been conducted in early phase settings (73.7%, 28/38) and in oncology (92.1%, 35/38). The quality of statistical information available about conducted umbrella trials to date is poor; for example, it was impossible to ascertain how sample size was determined in the majority of trials (55.3%, 21/38). The literature on statistical methods for umbrella trials is currently sparse.

Conclusions

Umbrella trials have potentially great utility to expedite drug development, including outside of oncology. However, to enable lessons to be effectively learned from early use of such designs, there is a need for higher-quality reporting of umbrella trials. Furthermore, if the potential of umbrella trials is to be realized, further methodological research is required.

Novel clinical trial design and analytic methods to tackle challenges in therapeutic development in rare diseases

While only a fraction of the worldwide population may have a particular rare disorder, millions of people worldwide are affected across the over 6,000 rare disorders and do not have a safe and effective approved therapy to help them live or manage complications from the disorder. Challenges to clinical development of new therapies in rare disorders include difficulty in powering and recruiting into a study in small and often heterogenous population, scarcity of natural history data informing critical design elements such as endpoint selection and study duration, and ethical and recruitment challenges in randomizing patients to a placebo arm. In this review, we describe some existing and novel strategies to tackle these challenges, by efficient utilization of available resources. We discuss the role of natural history studies and endpoint selection as they remain critical features that apply across designs and disorders. We also review some novel clinical trial designs including incorporating external control and/or longitudinal measures, master protocol designs, and adaptive designs. Additionally, we review some analytic strategies that are often associated with these designs, such as the use of causal inference methods, and Bayesian methods. We hope this review will raise awareness of these novel approaches and encourage their use in studies of rare diseases.

Approach for reporting master protocol study designs on ClinicalTrials.gov: qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe an approach for reporting master protocol research programs (MPRPs) that is consistent with existing good reporting practices and that uses structured information to convey the overall master protocol and design of each substudy.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis.

DATA SOURCES

ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Established goals and related practices of the trial reporting system were outlined, examples and key characteristics of MPRPs were reviewed, and specific challenges in registering and reporting summary results to databases designed for traditional clinical trial designs that rely on a model of one study per protocol were identified.

RESULTS

A reporting approach is proposed that accommodates the complex study design of MPRPs and their results. This approach involves the use of separate registration records for each substudy within one MPRP protocol (with potential exceptions noted).

CONCLUSIONS

How the proposed approach allows for clear, descriptive, structured information about each substudy's prespecified design and supports timely reporting of results after completion of each substudy is described and illustrated. Although the focus is on reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov, the approach supports broader application across trial registries and results databases. This paper is intended to stimulate further discussion of this approach among stakeholders, build awareness about the need to improve reporting of MPRPs, and encourage harmonization across trial registries globally.

A Rare Cancer Opportunity

In this issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Gallicchio and colleagues analyze recent rare-cancers research and suggest broad themes for accelerating progress in this important area. Whether the type of portfolio creation and portfolio management strategies that have worked for common cancers also work best for rare cancers warrants asking. This commentary argues for consideration of additional approaches. Incorporating principles and successes from large-scale network-based clinical trials and from advocacy-based research, and new ways to approach consortia, might accelerate the quantity and improve the quality of future rare-cancer research. Rare cancers significantly influence the overall cancer burden and cancer disparities. Creative community-based approaches to improve rare-cancers research should be considered.See related article by Gallichio et al., p. 1305.

Moving Molecular Profiling to Routine Clinical Practice: A Way Forward?

Molecular profiling of a patient's tumor to guide targeted treatment selection offers the potential to advance patient care by improving outcomes and minimizing toxicity (by avoiding ineffective treatments). However, current development of molecular profile (MP) panels is often based on applying institution-specific or subjective algorithms to nonrandomized patient cohorts. Consequently, obtaining reliable evidence that molecular profiling is offering clinical benefit and is ready for routine clinical practice is challenging. In particular, we discuss here the problems with interpreting for clinical utility nonrandomized studies that compare outcomes in patients treated based on their MP vs those treated with standard of care, studies that compare the progression-free survival (PFS) seen on a MP-directed treatment to the PFS seen for the same patient on a previous standard treatment (PFS ratio), and multibasket trials that evaluate the response rates of targeted therapies in specific molecularly defined subpopulations (regardless of histology). We also consider some limitations of randomized trial designs. A two-step strategy is proposed in which multiple mutation-agent pairs are tested for activity in one or more multibasket trials in the first step. The results of the first step are then used to identify promising mutation-agent pairs that are combined in a molecular panel that is then tested in the step-two strategy-design randomized clinical trial (the molecular panel-guided treatment for the selected mutations vs standard of care). This two-step strategy should allow rigorous evidence-driven identification of mutation-agent pairs that can be moved into routine clinical practice.