Mukherjee A, Wason JMS, Grayling MJ. When is a two-stage single-arm trial efficient? An evaluation of the impact of outcome delay.
Eur J Cancer 2022;
166:270-278. [PMID:
35344852 DOI:
10.1016/j.ejca.2022.02.010]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Simon's two-stage design is a widely used adaptive design, particularly in phase II oncology trials due to its simplicity and efficiency. However, its efficiency can be adversely affected when the primary end-point takes time to observe, as is common in practice.
METHODS
We propose an optimal design, taking the delay in observing treatment outcome into consideration and compare the efficiency gained from using Simon's design over a single-stage design for real-life oncology trials. Based on the results, we provide a general rule-of-thumb for determining whether a two-stage single-arm design can provide any added advantage over a single-stage design, given the recruitment rate and primary end-point length.
RESULTS
We observed an average 15-30% loss in the estimated efficiency gain in real oncology trials that used Simon's design due to the delay in observing the treatment outcome. The delay-optimal design provides some advantage over Simon's design in terms of reduced sample size when the delay is large compared to the recruitment length.
DISCUSSION
Simon's two-stage design provides large benefit over a single-stage design, in terms of reduced sample size, when the primary end-point length is no more than 10% of the total recruitment time. It provides no efficiency advantage when this ratio is above 50%.
Collapse