Statistical design considerations for trials that study multiple indications

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.

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.

Guidance on interim analysis methods in clinical trials

Interim analyses in clinical trials can take on a multitude of forms. They are often used to guide Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommendations to study teams regarding recruitment targets for large, later-phase clinical trials. As collaborative biostatisticians working and teaching in multiple fields of research and across a broad array of trial phases, we note the large heterogeneity and confusion surrounding interim analyses in clinical trials. Thus, in this paper, we aim to provide a general overview and guidance on interim analyses for a nonstatistical audience. We explain each of the following types of interim analyses: efficacy, futility, safety, and sample size re-estimation, and we provide the reader with reasoning, examples, and implications for each. We emphasize that while the types of interim analyses employed may differ depending on the nature of the study, we would always recommend prespecification of the interim analytic plan to the extent possible with risk mitigation and trial integrity remaining a priority. Finally, we posit that interim analyses should be used as tools to help the DSMB make informed decisions in the context of the overarching study. They should generally not be deemed binding, and they should not be reviewed in isolation.

Recent innovations in adaptive trial designs: A review of design opportunities in translational research

Clinical trials are constantly evolving in the context of increasingly complex research questions and potentially limited resources. In this review article, we discuss the emergence of "adaptive" clinical trials that allow for the preplanned modification of an ongoing clinical trial based on the accumulating evidence with application across translational research. These modifications may include terminating a trial before completion due to futility or efficacy, re-estimating the needed sample size to ensure adequate power, enriching the target population enrolled in the study, selecting across multiple treatment arms, revising allocation ratios used for randomization, or selecting the most appropriate endpoint. Emerging topics related to borrowing information from historic or supplemental data sources, sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMART), master protocol and seamless designs, and phase I dose-finding studies are also presented. Each design element includes a brief overview with an accompanying case study to illustrate the design method in practice. We close with brief discussions relating to the statistical considerations for these contemporary designs.

Basket Trials: Review of Current Practice and Innovations for Future Trials

Advances in biology and immunology have elucidated genetic and immunologic origins of cancer. Innovations in sequencing technologies revealed that distinct cancer histologies shared common genetic and immune phenotypic traits. Pharmacologic developments made it possible to target these alterations, yielding novel classes of targeted agents whose therapeutic potential span multiple tumor types. Basket trials, one type of master protocol, emerged as a tool for evaluating biomarker-targeted therapies among multiple tumor histologies. Conventionally conducted within the phase II setting and designed to estimate high and durable objective responses, basket trials pose challenges to statistical design and interpretation of results. This article reviews basket trials implemented in oncology studies and discusses issues related to their statistical design and analysis.

Bayesian and frequentist approaches to sequential monitoring for futility in oncology basket trials: A comparison of Simon's two-stage design and Bayesian predictive probability monitoring with information sharing across baskets

This article discusses and compares statistical designs of basket trial, from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. Baskets trials are used in oncology to study interventions that are developed to target a specific feature (often genetic alteration or immune phenotype) that is observed across multiple tissue types and/or tumor histologies. Patient heterogeneity has become pivotal to the development of non-cytotoxic treatment strategies. Treatment targets are often rare and exist among several histologies, making prospective clinical inquiry challenging for individual tumor types. More generally, basket trials are a type of master protocol often used for label expansion. Master protocol is used to refer to designs that accommodates multiple targets, multiple treatments, or both within one overarching protocol. For the purpose of making sequential decisions about treatment futility, Simon's two-stage design is often embedded within master protocols. In basket trials, this frequentist design is often applied to independent evaluations of tumor histologies and/or indications. In the tumor agnostic setting, rarer indications may fail to reach the sample size needed for even the first evaluation for futility. With recent innovations in Bayesian methods, it is possible to evaluate for futility with smaller sample sizes, even for rarer indications. Novel Bayesian methodology for a sequential basket trial design based on predictive probability is introduced. The Bayesian predictive probability designs allow interim analyses with any desired frequency, including continual assessments after each patient observed. The sequential design is compared with and without Bayesian methods for sharing information among a collection of discrete, and potentially non-exchangeable tumor types. Bayesian designs are compared with Simon's two-stage minimax design.

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.

Bayesian basket trial design with false-discovery rate control

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in developing "tumor agnostic" oncology therapies have identified molecular targets that define patient subpopulations in a manner that supersedes conventional criteria for cancer classification. These successes have produced effective targeted therapies that are administered to patients regardless of their tumor histology. Trials have evolved as well with master protocol designs. By blending translational and clinical science, basket trials in particular are well-suited to investigate and develop targeted therapies among multiple cancer histologies. However, basket trials intrinsically involve more complex design decisions, including issues of multiple testing across baskets, and guidance for investigators is needed.

METHODS

The sensitivity of the multisource exchangeability model to prior specification under differing degrees of response heterogeneity is explored through simulation. Then, a multisource exchangeability model design that incorporates control of the false-discovery rate is presented and a simulation study compares the operating characteristics to a design where the family-wise error rate is controlled and to the frequentist approach of treating the baskets as independent. Simulations are based on the original design of a real-world clinical trial, the SUMMIT trial, which investigated Neratinib treatment for a variety of solid tumors. The methods studied here are specific to single-arm phase II trials with binary outcomes.

RESULTS

Values of prior probability of exchangeability in the multisource exchangeability model between 0.1 and 0.3 provide the best trade-offs between gain in precision and bias, especially when per-basket sample size is below 30. Application of these calibration results to a re-analysis of the SUMMIT trial showed that the breast basket exceeded the null response rate with posterior probability of 0.999 while having low posterior probability of exchangeability with all other baskets. Simulations based on the design of the SUMMIT trial revealed that there is meaningful improvement in power even in baskets with small sample size when the false-discovery rate is controlled as opposed to the family-wise error rate. For example, when only the breast basket was active, with a sample size of 25, the power was 0.76 when the false-discovery rate was controlled at 0.05 but only 0.56 when the family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05, indicating that impractical sample sizes for the phase II setting would be needed to achieve acceptable power while controlling the family-wise error rate in this setting of a trial with 10 baskets.

CONCLUSION

Selection of the prior exchangeability probability based on calibration and incorporation of false-discovery rate control result in multisource exchangeability model designs with high power to detect promising treatments in the context of phase II basket trials.

Moving Beyond 3+3: The Future of Clinical Trial Design

Misgivings have been raised about the operating characteristics of the canonical 3+3 dose-escalation phase I clinical trial design. Yet, the traditional 3+3 design is still the most commonly used. Although it has been implied that adhering to this design is due to a stubborn reluctance to adopt change despite other designs performing better in hypothetical computer-generated simulation models, the continued adherence to 3+3 dose-escalation phase I strategies is more likely because these designs perform the best in the real world, pinpointing the correct dose and important side effects with an acceptable degree of precision. Beyond statistical simulations, there are little data to refute the supposed shortcomings ascribed to the 3+3 method. Even so, to address the unique nuances of gene- and immune-targeted compounds, a variety of inventive phase 1 trial designs have been suggested. Strategies for developing these therapies have launched first-in-human studies devised to acquire a breadth of patient data that far exceed the size of a typical phase I design and blur the distinction between dose selection and efficacy evaluation. Recent phase I trials of promising cancer therapies assessed objective tumor response and durability at various doses and schedules as well as incorporated multiple expansion cohorts spanning a variety of histology or biomarker-defined tumor subtypes, sometimes resulting in U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval after phase I. This article reviews recent innovations in phase I design from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and provides recommendations for future trials.