On Bayesian seamless phase I-II designs

Early phase clinical trial designs have long been the focus of interest for clinicians and statisticians working in oncology field. There are several standard phse I and phase II designs that have been widely-implemented in medical practice. For phase I design, the most commonly used methods are 3+3 and CRM. A newly-developed Bayesian model-based mTPI design has now been used by an increasing number of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. The advantages and disadvantages of these three top phase I designs have been discussed in my work here and their performances were compared using simulated data. It was shown that mTPI design exhibited superior performance in most scenarios in comparison with 3+3 and CRM designs. ^ The next major part of my work is proposing an innovative seamless phase I/II design that allows clinicians to conduct phase I and phase II clinical trials simultaneously. Bayesian framework was implemented throughout the whole design. The phase I portion of the design adopts mTPI method, with the addition of futility rule which monitors the efficacy performance of the tested drugs. Dose graduation rules were proposed in this design to allow doses move forward from phase I portion of the study to phase II portion without interrupting the ongoing phase I dose-finding schema. Once a dose graduated to phase II, adaptive randomization was used to randomly allocated patients into different treatment arms, with the intention of more patients being assigned to receive more promising dose(s). Again simulations were performed to compare the performance of this innovative phase I/II design with a recently published phase I/II design, together with the conventional phase I and phase II designs. The simulation results indicated that the seamless phase I/II design outperform the other two competing methods in most scenarios, with superior trial power and the fact that it requires smaller sample size. It also significantly reduces the overall study time. ^ Similar to other early phase clinical trial designs, the proposed seamless phase I/II design requires that the efficacy and safety outcomes being able to be observed in a short time frame. This limitation can be overcome by using validated surrogate marker for the efficacy and safety endpoints.^

Performance evaluation in Bayesian adaptive randomization

Bayesian adaptive randomization (BAR) is an attractive approach to allocate more patients to the putatively superior arm based on the interim data while maintains good statistical properties attributed to randomization. Under this approach, patients are adaptively assigned to a treatment group based on the probability that the treatment is better. The basic randomization scheme can be modified by introducing a tuning parameter, replacing the posterior estimated response probability, setting a boundary to randomization probabilities. Under randomization settings comprised of the above modifications, operating characteristics, including type I error, power, sample size, imbalance of sample size, interim success rate, and overall success rate, were evaluated through simulation. All randomization settings have low and comparable type I errors. Increasing tuning parameter decreases power, but increases imbalance of sample size and interim success rate. Compared with settings using the posterior probability, settings using the estimated response rates have higher power and overall success rate, but less imbalance of sample size and lower interim success rate. Bounded settings have higher power but less imbalance of sample size than unbounded settings. All settings have better performance in the Bayesian design than in the frequentist design. This simulation study provided practical guidance on the choice of how to implement the adaptive design. ^