Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2022
Inefficiency of two-stage designs in phase II oncology clinical trials with high proportion of inevaluable patients.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. 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
backgroundTwo-stage designs are commonly used for oncology Phase II clinical trials with a binary response endpoint. An issue that has not gained sufficient attention is the potential inefficiency in the usage of two-stage designs due to multiple enrollment suspensions when the proportion of patients inevaluable for response is high.
methodsSimulation studies were used to assess the performance of Simon's two-stage designs, two-stage designs with a proposed modification, and a single-stage design in the context of Phase II clinical trials with a high proportion of patients inevaluable for response.
resultsTwo-stage designs can require multiple enrollment disruptions when the inevaluable proportion is high, which can result in unacceptable inefficiency. The proposed modification provides a practical solution to this issue by enrolling an extra number of patients towards the end of the 1st stage, anticipating that a proportion of the patients pending response evaluation could be inevaluable. Single-stage designs with interim monitoring of futility that require no interim accrual suspension can be more efficient than two-stage designs, especially when the accrual and inevaluable rates are high.
conclusionsPlanning of Phase II trials should consider the issue of inefficiency of the two-stage designs, especially for trials with a high inevaluable proportion. Designs with monitoring rules that do not require accrual suspensions may be given more considerations, especially in trials of agents that have already had some evidence for safety and efficacy in other populations.
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.