ArticleStatistics in medicine2021
A Bayesian hierarchical monitoring design for phase II cancer clinical trials: Incorporating information on response duration into monitoring rules.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenging go/no-go decision scenarios and design recommendations in phase II oncology trials.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Article
- The Win Ratio Approach in Bayesian Monitoring for Two-Arm Phase II Clinical Trial Designs With Multiple Time-To-Event Endpoints.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We propose a Bayesian hierarchical monitoring design for single-arm phase II clinical trials of cancer treatments that incorporates the information on the duration of response (DOR) into the monitoring rules. To screen a new treatment by evaluating its preliminary therapeutic effect, futility monitoring rules are commonly used in phase II clinical trials to make "go/no-go" decisions timely and efficiently. These futility monitoring rules are usually focused on a single outcome (eg, response rate), although a single outcome may not adequately determine the efficacy of the experimental treatment. For example, targeted agents with a long response duration but a similar response rate may be worth further evaluation in cancer research. To address this issue, we propose Bayesian hierarchical futility monitoring rules to consider both the response rate and duration. The first level of monitoring evaluates whether the response rate provides evidence that the experimental treatment is worthy of further evaluation. If the evidence from the response rate does not support continuing the trial, the second level monitoring rule, which is based on the DOR, will be triggered. If both stopping rules are satisfied, the trial will be stopped for futility. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed monitoring rules and compared them to those of standard method. We illustrated the proposed design with a single-arm phase II cancer clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of combined treatment of nivolumab and azacitidine in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. The proposed design avoids an aggressive early termination for futility when the experimental treatment substantially prolongs the DOR but fails to improve the response rate.
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.