Outcome-based adaptive randomization for binary data in clinical trials---Compare and contrast

Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted to investigate parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in some well known adaptive randomization procedures. The four urn models studied are Randomized Play-the-Winner (RPW), Randomized Pôlya Urn (RPU), Birth and Death Urn with Immigration (BDUI), and Drop-the-Loses Urn (DL). Two sequential estimation methods, the sequential maximum likelihood estimation (SMLE) and the doubly adaptive biased coin design (DABC), are simulated at three optimal allocation targets that minimize the expected number of failures under the assumption of constant variance of simple difference (RSIHR), relative risk (ORR), and odds ratio (OOR) respectively. Log likelihood ratio test and three Wald-type tests (simple difference, log of relative risk, log of odds ratio) are compared in different adaptive procedures. ^ Simulation results indicates that although RPW is slightly better in assigning more patients to the superior treatment, the DL method is considerably less variable and the test statistics have better normality. When compared with SMLE, DABC has slightly higher overall response rate with lower variance, but has larger bias and variance in parameter estimation. Additionally, the test statistics in SMLE have better normality and lower type I error rate, and the power of hypothesis testing is more comparable with the equal randomization. Usually, RSIHR has the highest power among the 3 optimal allocation ratios. However, the ORR allocation has better power and lower type I error rate when the log of relative risk is the test statistics. The number of expected failures in ORR is smaller than RSIHR. It is also shown that the simple difference of response rates has the worst normality among all 4 test statistics. The power of hypothesis test is always inflated when simple difference is used. On the other hand, the normality of the log likelihood ratio test statistics is robust against the change of adaptive randomization procedures. ^

Continuous safety screens for randomized controlled clinical trials with blinded treatment information

Standard methods for testing safety data are needed to ensure the safe conduct of clinical trials. In particular, objective rules for reliably identifying unsafe treatments need to be put into place to help protect patients from unnecessary harm. DMCs are uniquely qualified to evaluate accumulating unblinded data and make recommendations about the continuing safe conduct of a trial. However, it is the trial leadership who must make the tough ethical decision about stopping a trial, and they could benefit from objective statistical rules that help them judge the strength of evidence contained in the blinded data. We design early stopping rules for harm that act as continuous safety screens for randomized controlled clinical trials with blinded treatment information, which could be used by anyone, including trial investigators (and trial leadership). A Bayesian framework, with emphasis on the likelihood function, is used to allow for continuous monitoring without adjusting for multiple comparisons. Close collaboration between the statistician and the clinical investigators will be needed in order to design safety screens with good operating characteristics. Though the math underlying this procedure may be computationally intensive, implementation of the statistical rules will be easy and the continuous screening provided will give suitably early warning when real problems were to emerge. Trial investigators and trial leadership need these safety screens to help them to effectively monitor the ongoing safe conduct of clinical trials with blinded data.^

A systematic review of community-based colorectal cancer screening randomized controlled trials with multi-ethnic groups

Background. The CDC estimates that 40% of adults 50 years of age or older do not receive time-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Sixty percent of colorectal cancer deaths could be prevented by regular screening of adults 50 years of age and older. Yet, in 2000 only 42.5% of adults age 50 or older in the U.S. had received recommended screening. Disparities by health care, nativity status, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity are evident. Disparities in minority, underserved populations prevent us from attaining Goal 2 of Healthy People 2010 to “eliminate health disparities.” This review focuses on community-based screening research among underserved populations that includes multiple ethnic groups for appropriate disparities analysis. There is a gap in the colorectal cancer screening literature describing the effectiveness of community-based randomized controlled trials. ^ Objective. To critically review the literature describing community-based colorectal cancer screening strategies that are randomized controlled trials, and that include multiple racial/ethnic groups. ^ Methods. The review includes a preliminary disparities analysis to assess whether interventions were appropriately targeted in communities to those groups experiencing the greatest health disparities. Review articles are from an original search using Ovid Medline and a cross-matching search in Pubmed, both from January 2001 to June 2009. The Ovid Medline literature review is divided into eight exclusionary stages, seven electronic, and the last stage consisting of final manual review. ^ Results. The final studies (n=15) are categorized into four categories: Patient mailings (n=3), Telephone outreach (n=3), Electronic/multimedia (n=4), and Counseling/community education (n=5). Of 15 studies, 11 (73%) demonstrated that screening rates increased for the intervention group compared to controls, including all studies (100%) from the Patient mailings and Telephone outreach groups, 4 of 5 (80%) Counseling/community education studies, and 1 of 4 (25%) Electronic/multimedia interventions. ^ Conclusions. Patient choice and tailoring education and/or messages to individuals have proven to be two important factors in improving colorectal cancer screening adherence rates. Technological strategies have not been overly successful with underserved populations in community-based trials. Based on limited findings to date, future community-based colorectal cancer screening trials should include diverse populations who are experiencing incidence, survival, mortality and screening disparities. ^

Bayesian Adaptive Designs for Early Phase Clinical Trials

My dissertation focuses mainly on Bayesian adaptive designs for phase I and phase II clinical trials. It includes three specific topics: (1) proposing a novel two-dimensional dose-finding algorithm for biological agents, (2) developing Bayesian adaptive screening designs to provide more efficient and ethical clinical trials, and (3) incorporating missing late-onset responses to make an early stopping decision. Treating patients with novel biological agents is becoming a leading trend in oncology. Unlike cytotoxic agents, for which toxicity and efficacy monotonically increase with dose, biological agents may exhibit non-monotonic patterns in their dose-response relationships. Using a trial with two biological agents as an example, we propose a phase I/II trial design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), which is defined as the dose combination of the two agents with the highest efficacy and tolerable toxicity. A change-point model is used to reflect the fact that the dose-toxicity surface of the combinational agents may plateau at higher dose levels, and a flexible logistic model is proposed to accommodate the possible non-monotonic pattern for the dose-efficacy relationship. During the trial, we continuously update the posterior estimates of toxicity and efficacy and assign patients to the most appropriate dose combination. We propose a novel dose-finding algorithm to encourage sufficient exploration of untried dose combinations in the two-dimensional space. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics in identifying the BODC under various patterns of dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships. Trials of combination therapies for the treatment of cancer are playing an increasingly important role in the battle against this disease. To more efficiently handle the large number of combination therapies that must be tested, we propose a novel Bayesian phase II adaptive screening design to simultaneously select among possible treatment combinations involving multiple agents. Our design is based on formulating the selection procedure as a Bayesian hypothesis testing problem in which the superiority of each treatment combination is equated to a single hypothesis. During the trial conduct, we use the current values of the posterior probabilities of all hypotheses to adaptively allocate patients to treatment combinations. Simulation studies show that the proposed design substantially outperforms the conventional multi-arm balanced factorial trial design. The proposed design yields a significantly higher probability for selecting the best treatment while at the same time allocating substantially more patients to efficacious treatments. The proposed design is most appropriate for the trials combining multiple agents and screening out the efficacious combination to be further investigated. The proposed Bayesian adaptive phase II screening design substantially outperformed the conventional complete factorial design. Our design allocates more patients to better treatments while at the same time providing higher power to identify the best treatment at the end of the trial. Phase II trial studies usually are single-arm trials which are conducted to test the efficacy of experimental agents and decide whether agents are promising to be sent to phase III trials. Interim monitoring is employed to stop the trial early for futility to avoid assigning unacceptable number of patients to inferior treatments. We propose a Bayesian single-arm phase II design with continuous monitoring for estimating the response rate of the experimental drug. To address the issue of late-onset responses, we use a piece-wise exponential model to estimate the hazard function of time to response data and handle the missing responses using the multiple imputation approach. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method through extensive simulation studies. We show that the proposed method reduces the total length of the trial duration and yields desirable operating characteristics for different physician-specified lower bounds of response rate with different true response rates.

Adaptive clinical trial design for targeted therapy development

The development of targeted therapy involve many challenges. Our study will address some of the key issues involved in biomarker identification and clinical trial design. In our study, we propose two biomarker selection methods, and then apply them in two different clinical trial designs for targeted therapy development. In particular, we propose a Bayesian two-step lasso procedure for biomarker selection in the proportional hazards model in Chapter 2. In the first step of this strategy, we use the Bayesian group lasso to identify the important marker groups, wherein each group contains the main effect of a single marker and its interactions with treatments. In the second step, we zoom in to select each individual marker and the interactions between markers and treatments in order to identify prognostic or predictive markers using the Bayesian adaptive lasso. In Chapter 3, we propose a Bayesian two-stage adaptive design for targeted therapy development while implementing the variable selection method given in Chapter 2. In Chapter 4, we proposed an alternate frequentist adaptive randomization strategy for situations where a large number of biomarkers need to be incorporated in the study design. We also propose a new adaptive randomization rule, which takes into account the variations associated with the point estimates of survival times. In all of our designs, we seek to identify the key markers that are either prognostic or predictive with respect to treatment. We are going to use extensive simulation to evaluate the operating characteristics of our methods.^