Nested combination tests with a time-to-event endpoint using a short-term endpoint for design adaptations

Efficient testing of the biomarker positive and negative subgroups in a biomarker-stratified trial

In many randomized placebo-controlled trials with a biomarker defined subgroup, it is believed that this subgroup has the same or higher treatment effect compared with its complement. These subgroups are often referred to as the biomarker positive and negative subgroups. Most biomarker-stratified pivotal trials are aimed at demonstrating a significant treatment effect either in the biomarker positive subgroup or in the overall population. A major shortcoming of this approach is that the treatment can be declared effective in the overall population even though it has no effect in the biomarker negative subgroup. We use the isotonic assumption about the treatment effects in the two subgroups to construct an efficient way to test for a treatment effect in both the biomarker positive and negative subgroups. A substantial reduction in the required sample size for such a trial compared with existing methods makes evaluating the treatment effect in both the biomarker positive and negative subgroups feasible in pivotal trials especially when the prevalence of the biomarker positive subgroup is less than 0.5.

The benefits of covariate adjustment for adaptive multi-arm designs

Covariate adjustment via a regression approach is known to increase the precision of statistical inference when fixed trial designs are employed in randomized controlled studies. When an adaptive multi-arm design is employed with the ability to select treatments, it is unclear how covariate adjustment affects various aspects of the study. Consider the design framework that relies on pre-specified treatment selection rule(s) and a combination test approach for hypothesis testing. It is our primary goal to evaluate the impact of covariate adjustment on adaptive multi-arm designs with treatment selection. Our secondary goal is to show how the Uniformly Minimum Variance Conditionally Unbiased Estimator can be extended to account for covariate adjustment analytically. We find that adjustment with different sets of covariates can lead to different treatment selection outcomes and hence probabilities of rejecting hypotheses. Nevertheless, we do not see any negative impact on the control of the familywise error rate when covariates are included in the analysis model. When adjusting for covariates that are moderately or highly correlated with the outcome, we see various benefits to the analysis of the design. Conversely, there is negligible impact when including covariates that are uncorrelated with the outcome. Overall, pre-specification of covariate adjustment is recommended for the analysis of adaptive multi-arm design with treatment selection. Having the statistical analysis plan in place prior to the interim and final analyses is crucial, especially when a non-collapsible measure of treatment effect is considered in the trial.

Predicting outcomes of phase III oncology trials with Bayesian mediation modeling of tumor response

Pivotal cancer trials often fail to yield evidence in support of new therapies thought to offer promising alternatives to standards-of-care. Conducting randomized controlled trials in oncology tends to be considerably more expensive than studies of other diseases with comparable sample size. Moreover, phase III trial design often takes place with a paucity of survival data for experimental therapies. Experts have explained the failures on the basis of design flaws which produce studies with unrealistic expectations. This article presents a framework for predicting outcomes of phase III oncology trials using Bayesian mediation models. Predictions, which arise from interim analyses, derive from multivariate modeling of the relationships among treatment, tumor response, and their conjoint effects on survival. Acting as a safeguard against inaccurate pre-trial design assumptions, the methodology may better facilitate rapid closure of negative studies. Additionally the models can be used to inform re-estimations of sample size for under-powered trials that demonstrate survival benefit via tumor response mediation. The methods are applied to predict the outcomes of two colorectal cancer studies. Simulation is used to evaluate and compare models in the absence versus presence of reliable surrogate markers of survival.

Clinical Trials Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Adaptive Designs to the Rescue?

Very recently the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The pandemic has a number of consequences for ongoing clinical trials in non-COVID-19 conditions. Motivated by four current clinical trials in a variety of disease areas we illustrate the challenges faced by the pandemic and sketch out possible solutions including adaptive designs. Guidance is provided on (i) where blinded adaptations can help; (ii) how to achieve Type I error rate control, if required; (iii) how to deal with potential treatment effect heterogeneity; (iv) how to use early read-outs; and (v) how to use Bayesian techniques. In more detail approaches to resizing a trial affected by the pandemic are developed including considerations to stop a trial early, the use of group-sequential designs or sample size adjustment. All methods considered are implemented in a freely available R shiny app. Furthermore, regulatory and operational issues including the role of data monitoring committees are discussed.

Point and interval estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with time to event data and biomarker-driven subpopulation selection

In personalized medicine, it is often desired to determine if all patients or only a subset of them benefit from a treatment. We consider estimation in two-stage adaptive designs that in stage 1 recruit patients from the full population. In stage 2, patient recruitment is restricted to the part of the population, which, based on stage 1 data, benefits from the experimental treatment. Existing estimators, which adjust for using stage 1 data for selecting the part of the population from which stage 2 patients are recruited, as well as for the confirmatory analysis after stage 2, do not consider time to event patient outcomes. In this work, for time to event data, we have derived a new asymptotically unbiased estimator for the log hazard ratio and a new interval estimator with good coverage probabilities and probabilities that the upper bounds are below the true values. The estimators are appropriate for several selection rules that are based on a single or multiple biomarkers, which can be categorical or continuous.