Three-Outcome Dual-Criterion Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Design
Pub. online: 7 May 2025
Type: Methodology Article
Open Access
Open Access
Area: Statistical Methodology
Accepted
3 March 2025
3 March 2025
Published
7 May 2025
7 May 2025
Abstract
The high cost of drug development and the relatively low success rates of phase III clinical trials highlight the need for improved and reasonably sized phase II trial designs, especially when responses observed in treatment and control could not lead to a clear-cut decision warranting further studies. To this end, we propose a three-outcome dual-criterion randomized (TDR) trial design, which implements inconclusive region sculpting using boundaries defined by both statistically significant differences between treatment and control as well as the clinical relevance of treatment responses. We provide statistical justifications for the TDR design in both one-stage and two-stage trial settings. Additionally, we evaluate its operating characteristics through a comparison with existing designs. The proposed design is shown able to achieve sample size saving and type II error reduction while controlling the type I error at a marginal cost of power reduction. Lastly, robustness under various deviations from the assumed control response rate is also demonstrated.
Supplementary material
Supplementary MaterialSupplementary Material for Three-Outcome Dual-Criterion Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Design.
References
Brookmeyer, R. and Crowley, J. (1982). A confidence interval for the median survival time. Biometrics 38(1) 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530286
Chow, S.-C., Wang, H. and Shao, J. (2007). Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781584889830. MR2356591
Defachelles, A.-S., Bogart, E., Casanova, M., Merks, J. H. M., Bisogno, G., Calareso, G., Gallego Melcon, S., Gatz, S. A., Le Deley, M.-C., McHugh, K., Probst, A., Rocourt, N., van Rijn, R. R., Wheatley, K., Minard-Colin, V. and Chisholm, J. C. (2021). Randomized phase II trial of vincristine-irinotecan with or without temozolomide, in children and adults with relapsed or refractory rhabdomyosarcoma: a European paediatric soft tissue sarcoma study group and innovative therapies for children with cancer trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 39(27) 2979–2990. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.00124.
Fisch, R., Jones, I., Jones, J., Kerman, J., Rosenkranz, G. K. and Schmidli, H. (2015). Bayesian design of proof-of-concept trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 49(1) 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014533970.
Herson, J. and Carter, S. K. (1986). Calibrated phase II clinical trials in oncology. Statistics in Medicine 5(5) 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780050508.
Hong, S. and Wang, Y. (2007). A three-outcome design for randomized comparative phase II clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 26(19) 3525–3534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2824. MR2393733
Kola, I. and Landis, J. (2004). Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 3(8) 711–715. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1470.
Law, M., Grayling, M. J. and Mander, A. P. (2021). A stochastically curtailed two-arm randomised phase II trial design for binary outcomes. Pharmaceutical Statistics 20(2) 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/PST.2067.
Lee, J. J. and Feng, L. (2005). Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 23(19) 4450–4457. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.197.
Litwin, S., Basickes, S. and Ross, E. A. (2017). Two-sample binary phase 2 trials with low type I error and low sample size. Statistics in Medicine 36(9) 1383–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7226. MR3631967
Mozgunov, P., Jaki, T. and Gasparini, M. (2019). Loss functions in restricted parameter spaces and their Bayesian applications. Journal of Applied Statistics 46(13) 2314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2019.1586848. MR3987561
Mozgunov, P. and Jaki, T. (2019). An information theoretic phase I–II design for molecularly targeted agents that does not require an assumption of monotonicity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied Statistics 68(2) 347. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12293. MR3902998
Rubinstein, L., Crowley, J., Ivy, P., LeBlanc, M. and Sargent, D. (2009). Randomized phase II designs. Clinical Cancer Research 15(6) 1883–1890. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2031.
Rubinstein, L. V., Korn, E. L., Freidlin, B., Hunsberger, S., Ivy, S. P. and Smith, M. A. (2005). Design issues of randomized phase ii trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 23(28) 7199–7206. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.149.
Sargent, D. J., Chan, V. and Goldberg, R. M. (2001). A three-outcome design for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 22(2) 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00115-X.
Shan, M. (2021). A confidence function-based posterior probability design for phase II cancer trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 20(3) 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2089.
Sharma, M. R., Stadler, W. M. and Ratain, M. J. (2011). Randomized phase II trials: a long-term investment with promising returns. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103(14) 1093–1100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr218.
Simon, R. (1989). Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 10(1) 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90015-9. MR4366283
Storer, B. E. (1992). A class of phase II designs with three possible outcomes. Biometrics 48(1) 55–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532738.
Wouters, O. J., McKee, M. and Luyten, J. (2020). Estimated research and development investment needed to bring a new medicine to market, 2009–2018. JAMA 323(9) 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1166.
