New designs for phase 2 clinical trials - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
. 2003 Jul 15;102(2):442-8.
doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2937. Epub 2003 Jan 30.
Affiliations
- PMID: 12560224
- DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2937
Free article
Comparative Study
New designs for phase 2 clinical trials
Elihu H Estey et al. Blood. 2003.
Free article
Abstract
Conventional phase 2 clinical trials are typically single-arm experiments, with outcome characterized by one binary "response" variable. Clinical investigators are poorly served by such conventional methodology. We contend that phase 2 trials are inherently comparative, with the results of the comparison determining whether to conduct a subsequent phase 3 trial. When different treatments are studied in separate single-arm trials, actual differences between response rates associated with the treatments, "treatment effects," are confounded with differences between the trials, "trial effects." Thus, it is impossible to estimate either effect separately. Consequently, when the results of separate single-arm trials of different treatments are compared, an apparent treatment difference may be due to a trial effect. Conversely, the apparent absence of a treatment effect may be due to an actual treatment effect being cancelled out by a trial effect. Because selection involves comparison, single-arm phase 2 trials thus fail to provide a reliable means for selecting which therapies to investigate in phase 3. Moreover, reducing complex clinical phenomena, including both adverse and desirable events, to a single outcome wastes important information. Consequently, conventional phase 2 designs are inefficient and unreliable. Given the limited number of patients available for phase 2 trials and the increasing number of new therapies that must be evaluated, it is critically important to conduct these trials efficiently. These concerns motivated the development of a general paradigm for randomized selection trials evaluating several therapies based on multiple outcomes. Three illustrative applications of trials using this approach are presented.
Similar articles
- A randomized phase 2 study of idarubicin and cytarabine with clofarabine or fludarabine in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.
Jabbour E, Short NJ, Ravandi F, Huang X, Xiao L, Garcia-Manero G, Plunkett W, Gandhi V, Sasaki K, Pemmaraju N, Daver NG, Borthakur G, Jain N, Konopleva M, Estrov Z, Kadia TM, Wierda WG, DiNardo CD, Brandt M, O'Brien SM, Cortes JE, Kantarjian H. Jabbour E, et al. Cancer. 2017 Nov 15;123(22):4430-4439. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30883. Epub 2017 Jul 14. Cancer. 2017. PMID: 28708931 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial. - Clofarabine in combination with a standard remission induction regimen (cytosine arabinoside and idarubicin) in patients with previously untreated intermediate and bad-risk acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS): phase I results of an ongoing phase I/II study of the leukemia groups of EORTC and GIMEMA (EORTC GIMEMA 06061/AML-14A trial).
Willemze R, Suciu S, Muus P, Halkes CJ, Meloni G, Meert L, Karrasch M, Rapion J, Vignetti M, Amadori S, de Witte T, Marie JP. Willemze R, et al. Ann Hematol. 2014 Jun;93(6):965-75. doi: 10.1007/s00277-014-2056-6. Epub 2014 Mar 29. Ann Hematol. 2014. PMID: 24682421 Clinical Trial. - Applicability of a "Pick a Winner" trial design to acute myeloid leukemia.
Hills RK, Burnett AK. Hills RK, et al. Blood. 2011 Sep 1;118(9):2389-94. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-337261. Epub 2011 Jul 6. Blood. 2011. PMID: 21734235 - A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in acute myeloid leukaemia.
Kimby E, Nygren P, Glimelius B; SBU-group. Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Kimby E, et al. Acta Oncol. 2001;40(2-3):231-52. doi: 10.1080/02841860151116321. Acta Oncol. 2001. PMID: 11441935 Review. - New designs for the selection of treatments to be tested in randomized clinical trials.
Simon R, Thall PF, Ellenberg SS. Simon R, et al. Stat Med. 1994 Mar 15-Apr 15;13(5-7):417-29. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780130506. Stat Med. 1994. PMID: 8023026 Review.
Cited by
- Recommendations for planning pilot studies in clinical and translational research.
Moore CG, Carter RE, Nietert PJ, Stewart PW. Moore CG, et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Oct;4(5):332-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00347.x. Clin Transl Sci. 2011. PMID: 22029804 Free PMC article. Review. - New agents in acute myeloid leukemia: beyond cytarabine and anthracyclines.
Fathi AT, Karp JE. Fathi AT, et al. Curr Oncol Rep. 2009 Sep;11(5):346-52. doi: 10.1007/s11912-009-0047-x. Curr Oncol Rep. 2009. PMID: 19679009 Free PMC article. Review. - Phase II prospective open-label trial of recombinant interleukin-11 in desmopressin-unresponsive von Willebrand disease and mild or moderate haemophilia A.
Ragni MV, Novelli EM, Murshed A, Merricks EP, Kloos MT, Nichols TC. Ragni MV, et al. Thromb Haemost. 2013 Feb;109(2):248-54. doi: 10.1160/TH12-06-0447. Epub 2012 Dec 13. Thromb Haemost. 2013. PMID: 23238591 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial. - New considerations in the design of clinical trials for the treatment of acute leukemia.
Hourigan CS, Karp JE. Hourigan CS, et al. Clin Investig (Lond). 2011 Apr 1;1(4):509-517. doi: 10.4155/cli.11.24. Clin Investig (Lond). 2011. PMID: 23459118 Free PMC article. - Phase IIB trial of oral Midostaurin (PKC412), the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 receptor (FLT3) and multi-targeted kinase inhibitor, in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome with either wild-type or mutated FLT3.
Fischer T, Stone RM, Deangelo DJ, Galinsky I, Estey E, Lanza C, Fox E, Ehninger G, Feldman EJ, Schiller GJ, Klimek VM, Nimer SD, Gilliland DG, Dutreix C, Huntsman-Labed A, Virkus J, Giles FJ. Fischer T, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Oct 1;28(28):4339-45. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.9678. Epub 2010 Aug 23. J Clin Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20733134 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources