ArticleCancers2025
Optimizing One-Sample Tests for Proportions in Single- and Two-Stage Oncology Trials.
Article in Cancers, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPhase II oncology trials often rely on single-arm designs to test H0:π=π0 versus Ha:π>π0, especially when randomized trials are infeasible due to cost or disease rarity. Traditional approaches, such as the exact binomial test and Simon's two-stage design, tend to be conservative, with actual Type I error rates falling below the nominal α due to the discreteness of the underlying binomial distribution. This study aims to develop a more efficient and flexible method that maintains accurate Type I error control in such settings.
methodsWe propose a convolution-based method that combines the binomial distribution with a simulated normal variable to construct an unbiased estimator of π. This method is designed to precisely control the Type I error rate while enabling more efficient trial designs. We derive its theoretical properties and assess its performance against traditional exact tests in both one-stage and two-stage trial designs.
resultsThe proposed method results in more efficient designs with reduced sample sizes compared to standard approaches, without compromising the control of Type I error rates. We introduce a new two-stage design incorporating interim futility analysis and compare it with Simon's design. Simulations and real-world examples demonstrate that the proposed approach can significantly lower trial cost and duration.
conclusionsThis convolution-based approach offers a flexible and efficient alternative to traditional methods for early-phase oncology trial design. It addresses the conservativeness of existing designs and provides practical benefits in terms of resource use and study timelines.
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.