Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38539108›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Optimal futility stopping boundaries for binary endpoints.

Michaela Maria Freitag, Xieran Li, Geraldine Rauch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michaela Maria FreitagCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. michaela-maria.freitag@charite.de.ORCID 0009-0009-0924-1277
Xieran LiCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1443-4032
Geraldine RauchCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2451-1660

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft RA 2347/11-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGroup sequential designs incorporating the option to stop for futility at the time point of an interim analysis can save time and resources. Thereby, the choice of the futility boundary importantly impacts the design's resulting performance characteristics, including the power and probability to correctly or wrongly stop for futility. Several authors contributed to the topic of selecting good futility boundaries. For binary endpoints, Simon's designs (Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989) are commonly used two-stage designs for single-arm phase II studies incorporating futility stopping. However, Simon's optimal design frequently yields an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility after the first stage, and in Simon's minimax design often a high proportion of the planned sample size is already evaluated at the interim analysis leaving only limited benefit in case of an early stop.

methodsThis work focuses on the optimality criteria introduced by Schüler et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 17:119, 2017) and extends their approach to binary endpoints in single-arm phase II studies. An algorithm for deriving optimized futility boundaries is introduced, and the performance of study designs implementing this concept of optimal futility boundaries is compared to the common Simon's minimax and optimal designs, as well as modified versions of these designs by Kim et al. (Oncotarget 10:4255-61, 2019).

resultsThe introduced optimized futility boundaries aim to maximize the probability of correctly stopping for futility in case of small or opposite effects while also setting constraints on the time point of the interim analysis, the power loss, and the probability of stopping the study wrongly, i.e. stopping the study even though the treatment effect shows promise. Overall, the operating characteristics, such as maximum sample size and expected sample size, are comparable to those of the classical and modified Simon's designs and sometimes better. Unlike Simon's designs, which have binding stopping rules, the optimized futility boundaries proposed here are not adjusted to exhaust the full targeted nominal significance level and are thus still valid for non-binding applications.

conclusionsThe choice of the futility boundary and the time point of the interim analysis have a major impact on the properties of the study design. Therefore, they should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The introduced method of selecting optimal futility boundaries provides a more flexible alternative to Simon's designs with non-binding stopping rules. The probability of wrongly stopping for futility is minimized and the optimized futility boundaries don't exhibit the unfavorable properties of an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility or a high proportion of the planned sample evaluated at the interim time point.

Indexed as

Medical FutilityResearch DesignAlgorithmsHumansProbabilitySample SizeBinary endpointFutility stopGroup sequential designSingle-arm phase II trial

Identifiers

PMID38539108
PMCPMC11331636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.