Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: The importance of randomisation
Introduction
The phase II clinical trial plays a central role in oncology drug development. After a phase I trial has determined a tolerable dose for a new agent or combination, a well-designed phase II trial should provide the information required to make a go/no-go decision regarding subsequent phase III testing. As phase III trials require several years, hundreds or thousands of patients and often tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the information that a quality phase II trial can provide is essential to a decision regarding the potential investment in a larger trial. In this paper, we present a rationale for the expanded use of randomisation in phase II oncology trials, in order to better inform this decision-making process.
Section snippets
Why do we do phase II trials?
Phase II trials should be most appropriately viewed as proof of concept trials, used for the purpose of determining whether a particular agent (or combination) should be studied further.1 In this sense, they serve a critical filtering mechanism, in which a negative trial should lead to the discontinuation of development of a new agent for the selected indication. Optimising the filtering process is the critical issue: too tight a filter will terminate promising agents improperly, but a too
What are the options for design of phase II trials?
Historically, phase II oncology trial designs can be divided into three categories: non-randomised (single-arm) trials compared to historical controls, randomised trials with multiple-experimental regimens compared to a historical control, and randomised trials including a prospective control arm. In this section, we provide a brief overview of each of these design strategies.
The single-arm trial has been the most frequently used approach to the efficacy evaluation at the phase II level in
When is a non-randomised phase II trial sufficient?
We believe non-randomised phase II trials in oncology should be the exception, not the rule. With that caveat, we acknowledge that such trials may be appropriate for trials in which the desired outcome (e.g. a partial response) will not occur in the absence of the investigational agent, and the rate of that outcome for existing agents or regimens is historically highly reliable. In this context, a positive phase II trial, defined as a response rate greater than some predefined threshold, would
When does a non-randomised phase II trial lead to a phase III trial that fails to achieve success on its primary end-point?
As stated previously, the fundamental assumptions that could justify a single-arm phase II trial are that data from the previous studies provide an adequately robust estimate of the experience of the treated patients from the current trial were they not to have received the experimental therapy, and that the end-point selected for the trial represents a definitive measure of agent activity. Not surprisingly, when these assumptions are violated (which is common), phase III trials have a high
What are the considerations in the design of randomised phase II trials?
Although there has been a debate about the value of formal statistical comparisons in phase II trials, we feel strongly that such comparisons are appropriate, with the caveat that phase II trials do not necessarily need to provide reliable definitive comparisons at a traditional two-sided type I error of 0.05. Given that the purpose of any phase II trial is to determine whether to proceed with further agent development, there is only one outcome of interest, superiority of one or more
Conclusions
Randomisation is greatly underutilised in early clinical trials in oncology. The use of randomised trials allows complete flexibility in the choice of end-points, particularly if blinding can be incorporated. This technique is the most powerful and reliable technique for distinguishing the effect of a drug from a placebo, a necessary predicate for a successful phase III trial. Given the large number of agents now available for clinical testing, the costs of phase III trials, and the limited
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References (22)
The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent
J Chronic Dis
(1961)- et al.
A three-outcome design for phase II clinical trials
Control Clin Trial
(2001) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials
Control Clin Trial
(1989)- et al.
A design for phase II testing of anticancer agents within a phase III clinical trial
Control Clin Trial
(1988) - et al.
False positive rates of randomized phase II designs
Control Clin Trial
(1999) Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development
Clin Pharmacol Ther
(1997)Predicting the outcome of phase III trials using phase II data: a case study of clinical trial simulation in late stage drug development
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol
(2005)- et al.
Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials
Biometrics
(1995) - et al.
Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials
Biometrics
(1987) - et al.
Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials
Biometrics
(1994)
A flexible design for multiple armed screening trials
Stat Med
Cited by (119)
The effects of foot reflexology on symptoms of discomfort in palliative care: a feasibility study
2023, BMC Complementary Medicine and TherapiesBASIC: A Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design for phase II clinical trials
2023, Clinical TrialsClinical trials of materials for medical applications-materials testing for toxicity, efficacy, disease treatment, and diagnosis in humans (clinical trial phase I, phase II, phase III, and phase IV)
2023, Materials for Medical Applications: Principles and Practices