Freidlin, Boris

Recent advances in biotechnology and cancer genomics have afforded enormous opportunities for development of more effective anticancer therapies. A key thrust of this modern drug development paradigm is successful identification of predictive biomarkers that can distinguish patients who might be sensitive to new targeted therapies. To respond to this challenge, a number of phase III cancer trial designs integrating biomarker-based objectives have been proposed and implemented in oncology drug development. In this article, we provide an updated review of commonly used biomarker-based randomized clinical trial designs, with a particular focus on design efficiency. When the efficacy of a new therapy may be limited to a biomarker-defined subgroup, the choice of an appropriate randomized clinical trial design should be guided by the strength of the biomarker’s credentials. If compelling evidence indicates that a targeted therapy is beneficial only in a particular biomarker-defined subgroup, an enrichment design should be used. If there is strong evidence that the treatment is likely to be more beneficial in the biomarker-positive patients but a meaningful benefit is also possible in the biomarker-negative patients, then a properly powered biomarker-stratified design (eg, a subgroup-specific or Marker Sequential Test strategy) would provide the most rigorous determination of the sensitive populations. If the evidence supporting the predictive value of the biomarker is weak and the treatment is expected to work in the overall population, then a fallback design could be used. Careful selection of an appropriate phase III design strategy that integrates evaluation of a new anticancer therapy and its companion diagnostic is critical to the success of precision medicine in oncology.

Background: Futility (inefficacy) interim monitoring is an important component in the conduct of phase III clinical trials, especially in life-threatening diseases. Desirable futility monitoring guidelines allow timely stopping if the new therapy is harmful or if it is unlikely to demonstrate to be sufficiently effective if the trial were to continue to its final analysis. There are a number of analytical approaches that are used to construct futility monitoring boundaries. The most common approaches are based on conditional power, sequential testing of the alternative hypothesis, or sequential confidence intervals. The resulting futility boundaries vary considerably with respect to the level of evidence required for recommending stopping the study. Purpose: We evaluate the performance of commonly used methods using event histories from completed phase III clinical trials of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Methods: We considered published superiority phase III trials with survival endpoints initiated after 1990. There are 52 studies available for this analysis from different disease sites. Total sample size and maximum number of events (statistical information) for each study were calculated using protocol-specified effect size, type I and type II error rates. In addition to the common futility approaches, we considered a recently proposed linear inefficacy boundary approach with an early harm look followed by several lack-of-efficacy analyses. For each futility approach, interim test statistics were generated for three schedules with different analysis frequency, and early stopping was recommended if the interim result crossed a futility stopping boundary. For trials not demonstrating superiority, the impact of each rule is summarized as savings on sample size, study duration, and information time scales. Results: For negative studies, our results show that the futility approaches based on testing the alternative hypothesis and repeated confidence interval rules yielded less savings (compared to the other two rules). These boundaries are too conservative, especially during the first half of the study (<50% of information). The conditional power rules are too aggressive during the second half of the study (>50% of information) and may stop a trial even when there is a clinically meaningful treatment effect. The linear inefficacy boundary with three or more interim analyses provided the best results. For positive studies, we demonstrated that none of the futility rules would have stopped the trials. Conclusion: The linear inefficacy boundary futility approach is attractive from statistical, clinical, and logistical standpoints in clinical trials evaluating new anti-cancer agents.