SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Trials
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Logan, B. R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Logan, B. R
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Optimal two-stage randomized phase II clinical trials

Brent R Logan

Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226-0509, USAblogan{at}mcw.edu

Randomized phase II clinical trials can be an efficient means of evaluating several potential new treatments prior to a comparative phase III clinical trial. However, selection designs do not allow for an assessment of minimal efficacy, nor do they allow early closing of a study arm for lack of efficacy, and so are only appropriate when all arms have met minimal efficacy requirements. Classic two-stage hypothesis testing based designs such as a Simon two-stage optimal design can satisfy these requirements, when used in parallel for the multiple treatment arms. However, these can be inefficient and impractical in terms of the maximum planned sample size required for such a study. This article proposes a two-stage randomized phase II clinical trial, where the sample size is adaptive at the second stage to the number of treatment arms passing through the first stage. The study design relies on optimality criteria, which are analogous to those used by Simon for single-arm studies. The proposed design maintains similar operating characteristics to a strategy of using multiple single-arm studies, in most situations of primary interest. Furthermore, it generally has smaller actual sample size when most of the treatments are effective than using multiple single-arm studies, leading to substantial efficiencies in terms of maximum planned sample size.

Clinical Trials, Vol. 2, No. 1, 5-12 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn061oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
H. G Allore and T. E Murphy
Review: An examination of effect estimation in factorial and standardly-tailored designs
Clinical Trials, April 1, 2008; 5(2): 121 - 130.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ASH Education BookHome page
M. R. Tomblyn and J. D. Rizzo
Are There Circumstances in Which Phase 2 Study Results Should Be Practice-Changing?
Hematology, January 1, 2007; 2007(1): 489 - 492.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Advertisement