This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Taylor, J. M. Articles by Li, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Taylor, J. M. Articles by Li, Z. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design

Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA, jmgt{at}umich.edu

Thomas M Braun

Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA

Zhiguo Li

Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA

Background Phase II clinical trials in cancer are used to assess whether a new agent has sufficiently promising efficacy to proceed on to a larger definitive study comparing the new agent to a standard agent.

Purpose A crucial issue in determining the usefulness of a one-arm design is the uncertainty of the historical response rate of the standard therapy. Therefore, we contrast the usual one-arm design of a Phase II trial with a randomized two-arm design that uses the same number of patients.

Methods We use simulations and analytical approximations to compare the two designs under a range of realistic values for the historical rate uncertainty and a range of treatment effects. We also extend the simulation model to compare the efficiency of the two designs in settings where multiple Phase II studies are used to make decisions about moving on to a Phase III study.

Results For a one-arm design the probability of correctly identifying an effective experimental agent tends to be at least 0.7 in the cases considered, with the corresponding value for a randomized two-arm design within 0.05-0.10 above or below the one-arm design. An increase in total sample size from 30 patients to 80 patients tends to increase the probability of correctly identifying an effective experiment agent more in the two-arm design than the the one-arm design, particularly when the uncertainty in the historical response rate is large.

Limitations These results for binary response measures are derived from the specific scenarios and assumptions considered in the simulation study and may not apply to situations outside the range considered.

Conclusions We find that a one-arm design is preferred for small sample sizes, but a two-arm design may be preferred with larger sample sizes or if the uncertainty in the historical response rates is large.

Clinical Trials, Vol. 3, No. 4, 335-348 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774506070654


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Lorenzen, T. Schuster, R. Porschen, S.-E. Al-Batran, R. Hofheinz, P. Thuss-Patience, M. Moehler, P. Grabowski, D. Arnold, T. Greten, et al. Cetuximab plus cisplatin-5-fluorouracil versus cisplatin-5-fluorouracil alone in first-line metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a randomized phase II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie Ann. Onc., October 1, 2009; 20(10): 1667 - 1673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Rubinstein, J. Crowley, P. Ivy, M. LeBlanc, and D. Sargent Randomized Phase II Designs Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2009; 15(6): 1883 - 1890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Korn, P.-Y. Liu, S. J. Lee, J.-A. W. Chapman, D. Niedzwiecki, V. J. Suman, J. Moon, V. K. Sondak, M. B. Atkins, E. A. Eisenhauer, et al. Meta-Analysis of Phase II Cooperative Group Trials in Metastatic Stage IV Melanoma to Determine Progression-Free and Overall Survival Benchmarks for Future Phase II Trials J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2008; 26(4): 527 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]