ReviewContemporary clinical trials2013
A review of phase II trial designs for initial marker validation.
Review in Contemporary clinical trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods for identification and confirmation of targeted subgroups in clinical trials: A systematic review.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2016Pooled it
- Prognostic and Treatment-Specific Predictive Implications of HER2 Expression in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Real-World Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Keeping phase III tuberculosis trials relevant: Adapting to a rapidly changing landscape.PLoS medicine · 2019Review
- Discussion of Trial Designs for Biomarker Identification and Validation Through the Use of Case Studies.JCO precision oncology · 2019Article
- Heterogeneity in Metastatic Breast CancerJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2018Article
- Advances in Biomarker-Guided Therapy for Pediatric- and Adult-Onset Neuroinflammatory Disorders: Targeting Chemokines/Cytokines.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
- Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2017Review
- Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.PloS one · 2016Review
- Molecular and clinical implementations of ovarian cancer mouse avatar models.Chinese clinical oncology · 2015Review
- Adaptive clinical trial designs in oncology.Chinese clinical oncology · 2014Article
- Drug designs fulfilling the requirements of clinical trials aiming at personalizing medicine.Chinese clinical oncology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phase II clinical trials aim to identify promising experimental regimens for further testing in phase III trials. In this review article, we focus on phase II designs for initial predictive biomarker validation to determine if a drug should be developed for an unselected patient population or for a biomarker-defined patient subset only. Several prospective designs for biomarker-directed therapy have been proposed, differing primarily in the study population, or randomization scheme, or both. The design choice is driven by scientific rationale, marker prevalence, strength of preliminary evidence, assay performance, and turn-around times for marker assessment. The enrichment design is most appropriate when compelling preliminary evidence suggests treatment benefit in only certain marker-defined subgroups, the all-comers design is useful when preliminary evidence regarding treatment effects in marker subgroups is unclear, and adaptive designs have the most potential in the setting of multiple treatment options and multiple marker-defined subgroups. We recently proposed a 2-stage phase II design that has the option for direct assignment (i.e., stop randomization and assign all patients to the experimental arm in stage 2) based on interim analysis (IA) results. This design not only recognizes the need for randomization but also acknowledges the possibility of promising but inconclusive results after pre-planned IA. Simulation studies demonstrated that the direct assignment-option design has minimal power loss, marginal increase in type I error rates, and reasonable robustness to population shift effects. Systematic evaluation and implementation of these design strategies in the phase II setting are essential for accelerating the clinical validation of biomarker guided-therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.