|
|
Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on January 30, 2003; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2937.
 Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article 
Blood, 15 July 2003, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 442-448
PERSPECTIVES
New designs for phase 2 clinical trials
Elihu H. Estey, and
Peter F. Thall
From the Department of Leukemia and Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
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.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
E. Estey
Do commonly used clinical trial designs reflect clinical reality?
Haematologica,
October 1, 2009;
94(10):
1435 - 1439.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Estey
Treatment of acute myeloid leukemia
Haematologica,
January 1, 2009;
94(1):
10 - 16.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Skolnik, J. S. Barrett, B. Jayaraman, D. Patel, and P. C. Adamson
Shortening the Timeline of Pediatric Phase I Trials: The Rolling Six Design
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 10, 2008;
26(2):
190 - 195.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Berg
Ethical Challenges in Cancer Research in Children
Oncologist,
November 1, 2007;
12(11):
1336 - 1343.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. G. Karrison, M. L. Maitland, W. M. Stadler, and M. J. Ratain
Design of Phase II Cancer Trials Using a Continuous Endpoint of Change in Tumor Size: Application to a Study of Sorafenib and Erlotinib in Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst,
October 3, 2007;
99(19):
1455 - 1461.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Estey
Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes in Older Patients
J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 10, 2007;
25(14):
1908 - 1915.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Estey, M. de Lima, R. Tibes, S. Pierce, H. Kantarjian, R. Champlin, and S. Giralt
Prospective feasibility analysis of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)
Blood,
February 15, 2007;
109(4):
1395 - 1400.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. T. Tam-McDevitt, L. Balducci, R. S. Hauser, D. Gura, A. Paraghamian, H. Thomas, and S. M. Lichtman
Has Demand for Clinical Trial Participants Outpaced Supply?
J Natl Cancer Inst,
January 3, 2007;
99(1):
86 - 87.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Tomblyn and J. D. Rizzo
Are There Circumstances in Which Phase 2 Study Results Should Be Practice-Changing?
Hematology,
January 1, 2007;
2007(1):
489 - 492.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Estey
How did we get here from there?
Blood,
June 15, 2006;
107(12):
4577 - 4577.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Morita, Y. Oka, A. Tsuboi, M. Kawakami, M. Maruno, S. Izumoto, T. Osaki, T. Taguchi, T. Ueda, A. Myoui, et al.
A Phase I/II Trial of a WT1 (Wilms' Tumor Gene) Peptide Vaccine in Patients with Solid Malignancy: Safety Assessment Based on the Phase I Data
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 1, 2006;
36(4):
231 - 236.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Estey
Statistical Considerations in Trials of Targeted Therapy: Acute Myelogenous Leukemia as an Example
Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book,
April 1, 2006;
2006(1):
289 - 292.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Abratt, W. H.H. Reece, N. H. Enas, and R. Stephens
Randomized phase II studies and their ethics.
J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 20, 2005;
23(36):
9443 - 9443.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F Thall, L. H Wooten, and N. M Tannir
Monitoring event times in early phase clinical trials: some practical issues
Clinical Trials,
December 1, 2005;
2(6):
467 - 478.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
