![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Background
New targeted anticancer therapies often benefit only a subset of patients with a given cancer. Definitive evaluation of these agents may require phase III randomized clinical trial designs that integrate evaluation of the new treatment and the predictive ability of the biomarker that putatively determines the sensitive subset.
Purpose
We propose a new integrated biomarker design, the Marker Sequential Test (MaST) design, that allows sequential testing of the treatment effect in the biomarker subgroups and overall population while controlling the relevant type I error rates.
Methods
After defining the testing and error framework for integrated biomarker designs, we review the commonly used approaches to integrated biomarker testing. We then present a general form of the MaST design and describe how it can be used to provide proper control of false-positive error rates for biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subgroups. The operating characteristics of the MaST design are compared by analytical methods and simulations to the sequential subgroup-specific design that sequentially assesses the treatment effect in the biomarker subgroups. Practical aspects of MaST design implementation are discussed.
Results
The MaST design is shown to have higher power relative to the sequential subgroup-specific design in situations where the treatment effect is homogeneous across biomarker subgroups, while preserving the power for settings where treatment benefit is limited to biomarker-positive subgroup. For example, in the time-to-event setting considered with 30% biomarker-positive prevalence, the MaST design provides up to a 30% increase in power in the biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subgroups when the treatment benefits all patients equally, while sustaining less than a 2% loss of power against alternatives where the benefit is limited to the biomarker-positive subgroup.
References
| 1. |
Freidlin, B, McShane, LM, Polley, MY, Korn, EL. Randomized phase II trial designs with biomarkers. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3304–09. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 2. |
Simon, R, Maitournam, A. Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 6759–63. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 3. |
Enrichment strategies for clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biological products, FDA Draft Guidance . Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM332181.pdf (2012). Google Scholar |
| 4. |
Freidlin, B, McShane, LM, Korn, EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: Design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 152–60. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 5. |
Simon, R . Clinical trials for predictive medicine. Stat Med 2012; 31: 3031–40. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 6. |
Rothmann, MD, Zhang, JJ, Lu, L, Fleming, TR. Testing in a prespecified subgroup and the intent-to-treat population. Drug Inf J 2012; 46: 175–79. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals |
| 7. |
Freidlin, B, Sun, Z, Gray, R, Korn, EL. Phase III clinical trials that integrate treatment and biomarker evaluation. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3158–3161. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. |
Douillard, JY, Siena, S, Cassidy, J. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: The PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4697–705. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 9. |
Cappuzzo, F, Ciuleanu, T, Stelmakh, L. Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 521–29. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 10. |
Simon, R . The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 5984–93. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 11. |
Freidlin, B, Simon, R. Adaptive signature design: An adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 7872–78. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 12. |
Johnston, S, Pippen, J, Pivot, X. Lapatinib combined with letrozole versus letrozole and placebo as first-line therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5538–46. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. |
O’Brien, PC, Fleming, TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35(3): 549–56. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. |
Lan, KK, DeMets, DL. Changing frequency of interim analysis in sequential monitoring. Biometrics 1989; 45(3): 1017–20. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 15. |
Freidlin, B, Korn, EL, Gray, R. A general inefficacy interim monitoring rule for randomized clinical trials. Clin Trials 2010; 7(3): 197–208. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 16. |
Karuri, SW, Simon, R. A two-stage Bayesian design for co-development of new drugs and companion diagnostics. Stat Med 2012; 31: 901–04. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
