This work provides a comprehensive framework for implementing DtL design, demonstrating its potential to accelerate treatment evaluation in oncology.
Abstract
In oncology, clinical trials are a cornerstone of evaluating new treatments. However, traditional designs face significant challenges, particularly when assessing multiple treatment options. The emergence of multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) designs, such as the drop-the-losers (DtL) approach, offers innovative solutions by combining multiple hypotheses within a single trial. This work evaluates the DtL approach. We extend the design to binary and survival endpoints. The statistical performance (Type I error control, statistical power, and biases) of the DtL design was assessed using a simulation study. Results demonstrated that the DtL design effectively balances statistical rigor and efficiency. The design strongly controls Type I error while ensuring high power in detecting drug effects. Scenarios with ineffective treatments highlighted the advantage of eliminating suboptimal options early. One limitation identified is that long-term survival endpoints may not be mature enough to support early treatment selection. Early decision-making is a key aspect of adaptive designs to support futility analysis or early efficacy analysis. It is critical to define properly the decision thresholds for such early analyses. Updating the endpoint of interest over time also aligns with clinical practices, starting with ORR, transitioning to benefit-risk scores or progression-free survival (PFS), and concluding with overall survival (OS) at the final analysis. Such an approach requires handling of correlations between drug effects across these endpoints. This work provides a comprehensive framework for implementing DtL design, demonstrating its potential to accelerate treatment evaluation in oncology.
Background/AimsPhase II trials with a safety lead-in (SLI), allowing one or two dose de-escalations based on toxicities from the first several patients at a dose, are increasingly common in oncology. Despite increased demand, formal evaluation of SLI designs remains limited to dose selection without evaluating the perf...
Emily N. Potts, Marie Ferron, L. Biard et al.· Clinical Trials· 0 citations
Background and Objectives Multi-arm multistage (MAMS) clinical trials use interim outcome stage analyses to test multiple candidate treatments, determining which should proceed to the next trial stage. The reduced time, cost, and participant numbers, compared with current separated phases 2 and 3 clinical trials, could...
Sean Apap Mangion, Charles Wade, Daniel Coles et al.· Neurology· 0 citations
The multi-arm two-stage (MATS) design combines proof-of-concept and dose optimization in a single study, which starts from parallel enrollments of participants across multiple cohorts (indications) at a dose selected from the dose-escalation study, which is usually the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) in traditional oncolo...
The FDA's Project Optimus CALLS for randomized exploration of multiple doses to better refine selection of the optimal biologic dose (OBD). Project FrontRunner encourages the use of randomized controlled trials earlier in the drug development process. We propose a seamless three-stage trial design that addresses both g...
Emily C. Zabor, Sneha Govande, Wen-Wee Ma et al.· Pharmaceutical statistics· 0 citations
Stroke can occur at any age, and the effects can last for the remaining lifetime. To minimize the clinical and economic burden of stroke, we need to develop and test new treatments that have the potential to improve outcomes for people with stroke. Early-phase trials are foundational to testing new treatments in medici...
Kathryn S. Hayward, Bruce C. V. Campbell, E. Dalton et al.· Stroke· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.