ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2015
Rational Clinical Experiment: Assessing Prior Probability and Its Impact on the Success of Phase II Clinical Trials.
Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite a robust clinical trial enterprise and encouraging phase II results, the vast minority of oncologic drugs in development receive regulatory approval. In addition, clinicians occasionally make therapeutic decisions based on phase II data. Therefore, clinicians, investigators, and regulatory agencies require improved understanding of the implications of positive phase II studies. We hypothesized that prior probability of eventual drug approval was significantly different across GI cancers, with substantial ramifications for the predictive value of phase II studies.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of phase II studies conducted between 1999 and 2004 and compared studies against US Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute databases of approved indications for drugs tested in those studies.
resultsIn all, 317 phase II trials were identified and followed for a median of 12.5 years. Following completion of phase III studies, eventual new drug application approval rates varied from 0% (zero of 45) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma to 34.8% (24 of 69) for colon adenocarcinoma. The proportion of drugs eventually approved was correlated with the disease under study (P < .001). The median type I error for all published trials was 0.05, and the median type II error was 0.1, with minimal variation. By using the observed median type I error for each disease, phase II studies have positive predictive values ranging from less than 1% to 90%, depending on primary site of the cancer.
conclusionPhase II trials in different GI malignancies have distinct prior probabilities of drug approval, yielding quantitatively and qualitatively different predictive values with similar statistical designs. Incorporation of prior probability into trial design may allow for more effective design and interpretation of phase II studies.
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.