Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Correspondence

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs

Authors: Thomas Burnett, Pavel Mozgunov, Philip Pallmann, Sofia S. Villar, Graham M. Wheeler, Thomas Jaki

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical, and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory phase III studies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets D, Reboussin D, Granger C, et al. Fundamentals of clinical trials, vol. 4. New York: Springer; 2010, pp. 85–115.CrossRef Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets D, Reboussin D, Granger C, et al. Fundamentals of clinical trials, vol. 4. New York: Springer; 2010, pp. 85–115.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Pallmann P, Bedding A, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson L, Holmes J, Mander A, Sydes M, Villar S, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):29.CrossRef Pallmann P, Bedding A, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson L, Holmes J, Mander A, Sydes M, Villar S, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):29.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hampson L, Williamson P, Wilby M, Jaki T. A framework for prospectively defining progression rules for internal pilot studies monitoring recruitment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018; 27(12):3612–27.CrossRef Hampson L, Williamson P, Wilby M, Jaki T. A framework for prospectively defining progression rules for internal pilot studies monitoring recruitment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018; 27(12):3612–27.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med. 2016; 35(3):325–47.CrossRef Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med. 2016; 35(3):325–47.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Pocock S. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977; 64(2):191–9.CrossRef Pocock S. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977; 64(2):191–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chow S-C, Chang M, Pong A. Statistical consideration of adaptive methods in clinical development. J Biopharm Stat. 2005; 15(4):575–91.CrossRef Chow S-C, Chang M, Pong A. Statistical consideration of adaptive methods in clinical development. J Biopharm Stat. 2005; 15(4):575–91.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dimairo M, Coates E, Pallmann P, Todd S, Julious S, Jaki T, Wason J, Mander A, Weir C, Koenig F, et al. Development process of a consensus-driven consort extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design. BMC medicine. 2018; 16(1):210.CrossRef Dimairo M, Coates E, Pallmann P, Todd S, Julious S, Jaki T, Wason J, Mander A, Weir C, Koenig F, et al. Development process of a consensus-driven consort extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design. BMC medicine. 2018; 16(1):210.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Le Tourneau C, Lee J, Siu L. Dose escalation methods in phase i cancer clinical trials. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(10):708–20.CrossRef Le Tourneau C, Lee J, Siu L. Dose escalation methods in phase i cancer clinical trials. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(10):708–20.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials. 2013; 10(2):344–6.CrossRef Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials. 2013; 10(2):344–6.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Chevret S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only?Stat Med. 2012; 31(11-12):1002–13.CrossRef Chevret S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only?Stat Med. 2012; 31(11-12):1002–13.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Dimairo M, Julious S, Todd S, Nicholl J, Boote J. Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015; 16(1):585.CrossRef Dimairo M, Julious S, Todd S, Nicholl J, Boote J. Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015; 16(1):585.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dimairo M, Boote J, Julious S, Nicholl J, Todd S. Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015; 16(1):430.CrossRef Dimairo M, Boote J, Julious S, Nicholl J, Todd S. Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015; 16(1):430.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):425–35.CrossRef Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):425–35.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Stallard N, Hampson L, Benda N, Brannath W, Burnett T, Friede T, Kimani P, Koenig F, Krisam J, Mozgunov P, Posch M, Wason J, Wassmer G, Whitehead J, Williamson S, Zohar S, Jaki T. Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for covid-19. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020; 0(0):1–15. Stallard N, Hampson L, Benda N, Brannath W, Burnett T, Friede T, Kimani P, Koenig F, Krisam J, Mozgunov P, Posch M, Wason J, Wassmer G, Whitehead J, Williamson S, Zohar S, Jaki T. Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for covid-19. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020; 0(0):1–15.
16.
go back to reference Carter S. Study design principles for the clinical evaluation of new drugs as developed by the chemotherapy program of the national cancer institute. The design of clinical trials in cancer therapy. 1973;:242–89. Carter S. Study design principles for the clinical evaluation of new drugs as developed by the chemotherapy program of the national cancer institute. The design of clinical trials in cancer therapy. 1973;:242–89.
17.
go back to reference Storer B. Design and analysis of phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989; 45(3):925–37.CrossRef Storer B. Design and analysis of phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989; 45(3):925–37.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lin Y, Shih W. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm?based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2001; 2(2):203–15.CrossRef Lin Y, Shih W. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm?based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2001; 2(2):203–15.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Park S, Bang S-M, Cho E, Shin D, Lee J, Lee W, Chung M. Phase i dose-escalating study of docetaxel in combination with 5-day continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced gastric cancer. BMC cancer. 2005; 5(1):87.CrossRef Park S, Bang S-M, Cho E, Shin D, Lee J, Lee W, Chung M. Phase i dose-escalating study of docetaxel in combination with 5-day continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced gastric cancer. BMC cancer. 2005; 5(1):87.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A. Aplusb: a web application for investigating a+ b designs for phase i cancer clinical trials. PloS one. 2016; 11(7):0159026.CrossRef Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A. Aplusb: a web application for investigating a+ b designs for phase i cancer clinical trials. PloS one. 2016; 11(7):0159026.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kang S-H, Ahn C. The expected toxicity rate at the maximum tolerated dose in the standard phase i cancer clinical trial design. Drug Inf J. 2001; 35(4):1189–99.CrossRef Kang S-H, Ahn C. The expected toxicity rate at the maximum tolerated dose in the standard phase i cancer clinical trial design. Drug Inf J. 2001; 35(4):1189–99.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kang S-H, Ahn C. An investigation of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase 1 cancer clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2002; 36(4):865–73.CrossRef Kang S-H, Ahn C. An investigation of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase 1 cancer clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2002; 36(4):865–73.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference He W, Liu J, Binkowitz B, Quan H. A model-based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase i cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2006; 25(12):2027–42.CrossRef He W, Liu J, Binkowitz B, Quan H. A model-based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase i cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2006; 25(12):2027–42.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990; 46:33–48.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990; 46:33–48.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Shen L. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996; 52(2):673–84.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Shen L. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996; 52(2):673–84.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Wheeler G, Mander A, Bedding A, Brock K, Cornelius V, Grieve A, Jaki T, Love S, Weir C, Yap C, et al. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):1–15.CrossRef Wheeler G, Mander A, Bedding A, Brock K, Cornelius V, Grieve A, Jaki T, Love S, Weir C, Yap C, et al. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):1–15.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Paoletti X, Baron B, Schöffski P, Fumoleau P, Lacombe D, Marreaud S, Sylvester R. Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an eortc phase i dose finding study. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(10):1362–8.CrossRef Paoletti X, Baron B, Schöffski P, Fumoleau P, Lacombe D, Marreaud S, Sylvester R. Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an eortc phase i dose finding study. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(10):1362–8.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ratain M, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase i and ii clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85(20):1637–43.CrossRef Ratain M, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase i and ii clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85(20):1637–43.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Zohar S. Experimental designs for phase i and phase i/ii dose-finding studies. Br J Cancer. 2006; 94(5):609.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Zohar S. Experimental designs for phase i and phase i/ii dose-finding studies. Br J Cancer. 2006; 94(5):609.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Shen L, Gamst A. Two-sample continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat. 1999; 9(1):17–44.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Shen L, Gamst A. Two-sample continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat. 1999; 9(1):17–44.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Thall P, Millikan R, Mueller P, Lee S-J. Dose-finding with two agents in phase i oncology trials. Biometrics. 2003; 59(3):487–96.CrossRef Thall P, Millikan R, Mueller P, Lee S-J. Dose-finding with two agents in phase i oncology trials. Biometrics. 2003; 59(3):487–96.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Iasonos A, Wilton A, Riedel E, Seshan V, Spriggs D. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+ 3 dose escalation scheme in phase i dose-finding studies. Clin Trials. 2008; 5(5):465–77.CrossRef Iasonos A, Wilton A, Riedel E, Seshan V, Spriggs D. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+ 3 dose escalation scheme in phase i dose-finding studies. Clin Trials. 2008; 5(5):465–77.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Onar A, Kocak M, Boyett J. Continual reassessment method vs. traditional empirically based design: modifications motivated by phase i trials in pediatric oncology by the pediatric brain tumor consortium. J Biopharm Stat. 2009; 19(3):437–55.CrossRef Onar A, Kocak M, Boyett J. Continual reassessment method vs. traditional empirically based design: modifications motivated by phase i trials in pediatric oncology by the pediatric brain tumor consortium. J Biopharm Stat. 2009; 19(3):437–55.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Onar-Thomas A, Xiong Z. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric phase i oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 31(3):259–70.CrossRef Onar-Thomas A, Xiong Z. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric phase i oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 31(3):259–70.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Conaway M, Petroni G. The impact of early-phase trial design in the drug development process. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25(2):819–27.CrossRef Conaway M, Petroni G. The impact of early-phase trial design in the drug development process. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25(2):819–27.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Lee S, Cheng B, Cheung Y. Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints. Biostatistics. 2010; 12(2):386–98.CrossRef Lee S, Cheng B, Cheung Y. Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints. Biostatistics. 2010; 12(2):386–98.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Iasonos A, Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(4):370–9.CrossRef Iasonos A, Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(4):370–9.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Van Meter E, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clin trials. 2012; 9(3):303–13.CrossRef Van Meter E, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clin trials. 2012; 9(3):303–13.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Braun T. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the crm to phase i trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials. 2002; 23(3):240–56.CrossRef Braun T. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the crm to phase i trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials. 2002; 23(3):240–56.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Optimal designs for estimating the most successful dose. Stat Med. 2006; 25(24):4311–20.CrossRef Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Optimal designs for estimating the most successful dose. Stat Med. 2006; 25(24):4311–20.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Identifying the most successful dose (msd) in dose-finding studies in cancer. Pharm Stat. 2006; 5(3):187–99.CrossRef Zohar S, O’Quigley J. Identifying the most successful dose (msd) in dose-finding studies in cancer. Pharm Stat. 2006; 5(3):187–99.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Zhong W, Koopmeiners J, Carlin B. A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase i/ii trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy. Stat Med. 2012; 31(29):3885–95.CrossRef Zhong W, Koopmeiners J, Carlin B. A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase i/ii trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy. Stat Med. 2012; 31(29):3885–95.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Yeung W, Whitehead J, Reigner B, Beyer U, Diack C, Jaki T. Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation procedures for binary and continuous responses utilizing a gain function. Pharm Stat. 2015; 14(6):479–87.CrossRef Yeung W, Whitehead J, Reigner B, Beyer U, Diack C, Jaki T. Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation procedures for binary and continuous responses utilizing a gain function. Pharm Stat. 2015; 14(6):479–87.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Yeung W, Reigner B, Beyer U, Diack C, Sabanés bové D, Palermo G, Jaki T. Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy. Pharm Stat. 2017; 16(6):396–413.CrossRef Yeung W, Reigner B, Beyer U, Diack C, Sabanés bové D, Palermo G, Jaki T. Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy. Pharm Stat. 2017; 16(6):396–413.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Cheung Y, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase i clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000; 56(4):1177–82.CrossRef Cheung Y, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase i clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000; 56(4):1177–82.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Braun T. Generalizing the tite-crm to adapt for early-and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med. 2006; 25(12):2071–83.CrossRef Braun T. Generalizing the tite-crm to adapt for early-and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med. 2006; 25(12):2071–83.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Kramar A, Lebecq A, Candalh E. Continual reassessment methods in phase i trials of the combination of two drugs in oncology. Stat Med. 1999; 18(14):1849–64.CrossRef Kramar A, Lebecq A, Candalh E. Continual reassessment methods in phase i trials of the combination of two drugs in oncology. Stat Med. 1999; 18(14):1849–64.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Wang K, Ivanova A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics. 2005; 61(1):217–22.CrossRef Wang K, Ivanova A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics. 2005; 61(1):217–22.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Yuan Y, Yin G. Sequential continual reassessment method for two-dimensional dose finding. Stat Med. 2008; 27(27):5664–78.CrossRef Yuan Y, Yin G. Sequential continual reassessment method for two-dimensional dose finding. Stat Med. 2008; 27(27):5664–78.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Wages N, Conaway M, O’Quigley J. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(4):380–9.CrossRef Wages N, Conaway M, O’Quigley J. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(4):380–9.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Harrington J, Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A, Jodrell D. Adaptive designs for dual-agent phase i dose-escalation studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10(5):277.CrossRef Harrington J, Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A, Jodrell D. Adaptive designs for dual-agent phase i dose-escalation studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10(5):277.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Riviere M-K, Yuan Y, Dubois F, Zohar S. A bayesian dose-finding design for drug combination clinical trials based on the logistic model. Pharm Stat. 2014; 13(4):247–57.CrossRef Riviere M-K, Yuan Y, Dubois F, Zohar S. A bayesian dose-finding design for drug combination clinical trials based on the logistic model. Pharm Stat. 2014; 13(4):247–57.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Riviere M-K, Dubois F, Zohar S. Competing designs for drug combination in phase i dose-finding clinical trials. Stat Med. 2015; 34(1):1–12.CrossRef Riviere M-K, Dubois F, Zohar S. Competing designs for drug combination in phase i dose-finding clinical trials. Stat Med. 2015; 34(1):1–12.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Wages N, Slingluff Jr C, Petroni G. Statistical controversies in clinical research: early-phase adaptive design for combination immunotherapies. Ann Oncol. 2016; 28(4):696–701.CrossRef Wages N, Slingluff Jr C, Petroni G. Statistical controversies in clinical research: early-phase adaptive design for combination immunotherapies. Ann Oncol. 2016; 28(4):696–701.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics guidance for industry. 2019; 22:2623–9. Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics guidance for industry. 2019; 22:2623–9.
56.
go back to reference Nie L, Rubin E, Mehrotra N, Pinheiro J, Fernandes L, Roy A, Bailey S, de Alwis D. Rendering the 3+ 3 design to rest: more efficient approaches to oncology dose-finding trials in the era of targeted therapy. AACR. 2016; 22:2623–9. Nie L, Rubin E, Mehrotra N, Pinheiro J, Fernandes L, Roy A, Bailey S, de Alwis D. Rendering the 3+ 3 design to rest: more efficient approaches to oncology dose-finding trials in the era of targeted therapy. AACR. 2016; 22:2623–9.
57.
go back to reference Yap C, Billingham L, Cheung Y, Craddock C, O’Quigley J. Dose transition pathways: the missing link between complex dose-finding designs and simple decision-making. Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23(24):7440–7.CrossRef Yap C, Billingham L, Cheung Y, Craddock C, O’Quigley J. Dose transition pathways: the missing link between complex dose-finding designs and simple decision-making. Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23(24):7440–7.CrossRef
59.
go back to reference Bové D, Yeung W, Palermo G, Jaki T. Model-based dose escalation designs in r with crmpack. J Stat Softw. 2019; 89(10):1–22. Bové D, Yeung W, Palermo G, Jaki T. Model-based dose escalation designs in r with crmpack. J Stat Softw. 2019; 89(10):1–22.
60.
go back to reference Sweeting M, Mander A, Sabin T, et al. Bcrm: Bayesian continual reassessment method designs for phase i dose-finding trials. J Stat Softw. 2013; 54(13):1–26.CrossRef Sweeting M, Mander A, Sabin T, et al. Bcrm: Bayesian continual reassessment method designs for phase i dose-finding trials. J Stat Softw. 2013; 54(13):1–26.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Wages N, Petroni G. A web tool for designing and conducting phase i trials using the continual reassessment method. BMC cancer. 2018; 18(1):133.CrossRef Wages N, Petroni G. A web tool for designing and conducting phase i trials using the continual reassessment method. BMC cancer. 2018; 18(1):133.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference Chen S-C, Shyr Y. A web application for optimal selection of adaptive designs in phase i oncology clinical trials. In: Trials. London: Biomed Central LTD: 2017. Chen S-C, Shyr Y. A web application for optimal selection of adaptive designs in phase i oncology clinical trials. In: Trials. London: Biomed Central LTD: 2017.
63.
go back to reference Pallmann P, Wan F, Mander A, Wheeler G, Yap C, Clive S, Hampson L, Jaki T. Designing and evaluating dose-escalation studies made easy: the MoDEsT web app. Clin Trials. 2020; 17(2):147–56.CrossRef Pallmann P, Wan F, Mander A, Wheeler G, Yap C, Clive S, Hampson L, Jaki T. Designing and evaluating dose-escalation studies made easy: the MoDEsT web app. Clin Trials. 2020; 17(2):147–56.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase i clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998; 17(10):1103–20.CrossRef Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase i clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998; 17(10):1103–20.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A. Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase i cancer trials. Stat Med. 2017; 36(16):2499–513.CrossRef Wheeler G, Sweeting M, Mander A. Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase i cancer trials. Stat Med. 2017; 36(16):2499–513.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Tighiouart M, Rogatko A. Dose finding with escalation with overdose control (ewoc) in cancer clinical trials. Stat Sci. 2010; 25(2):217–26.CrossRef Tighiouart M, Rogatko A. Dose finding with escalation with overdose control (ewoc) in cancer clinical trials. Stat Sci. 2010; 25(2):217–26.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference Nishio M, Murakami H, Horiike A, Takahashi T, Hirai F, Suenaga N, Tajima T, Tokushige K, Ishii M, Boral A, et al. Phase i study of ceritinib (ldk378) in Japanese patients with advanced, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer or other tumors. J Thorac Oncol. 2015; 10(7):1058–66.CrossRef Nishio M, Murakami H, Horiike A, Takahashi T, Hirai F, Suenaga N, Tajima T, Tokushige K, Ishii M, Boral A, et al. Phase i study of ceritinib (ldk378) in Japanese patients with advanced, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer or other tumors. J Thorac Oncol. 2015; 10(7):1058–66.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Tighiouart M, Liu Y, Rogatko A. Escalation with overdose control using time to toxicity for cancer phase i clinical trials. PloS one. 2014; 9(3):93070.CrossRef Tighiouart M, Liu Y, Rogatko A. Escalation with overdose control using time to toxicity for cancer phase i clinical trials. PloS one. 2014; 9(3):93070.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference Shi Y, Yin G. Escalation with overdose control for phase i drug-combination trials. Stat Med. 2013; 32(25):4400–12.CrossRef Shi Y, Yin G. Escalation with overdose control for phase i drug-combination trials. Stat Med. 2013; 32(25):4400–12.CrossRef
70.
go back to reference Tighiouart M, Piantadosi S, Rogatko A. Dose finding with drug combinations in cancer phase i clinical trials using conditional escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 2014; 33(22):3815–29.CrossRef Tighiouart M, Piantadosi S, Rogatko A. Dose finding with drug combinations in cancer phase i clinical trials using conditional escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 2014; 33(22):3815–29.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference Mozgunov P, Jaki T. Improving safety of the continual reassessment method via a modified allocation rule. Stat Med. 2020; 39(7):906–22.CrossRef Mozgunov P, Jaki T. Improving safety of the continual reassessment method via a modified allocation rule. Stat Med. 2020; 39(7):906–22.CrossRef
72.
go back to reference Berry S, Carlin B, Lee J, Muller P. Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. Raton, FL: CRC press; 2010.CrossRef Berry S, Carlin B, Lee J, Muller P. Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. Raton, FL: CRC press; 2010.CrossRef
73.
go back to reference Babb J, Rogatko A. Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase i clinical trial. Stat Med. 2001; 20(14):2079–90.CrossRef Babb J, Rogatko A. Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase i clinical trial. Stat Med. 2001; 20(14):2079–90.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Cheng J, Babb J, Langer C, Aamdal S, Robert F, Engelhardt L, Fernberg O, Schiller J, Forsberg G, Alpaugh R, et al. Individualized patient dosing in phase i clinical trials: the role of escalation with overdose control in pnu-214936. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(4):602–9.CrossRef Cheng J, Babb J, Langer C, Aamdal S, Robert F, Engelhardt L, Fernberg O, Schiller J, Forsberg G, Alpaugh R, et al. Individualized patient dosing in phase i clinical trials: the role of escalation with overdose control in pnu-214936. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(4):602–9.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Wheeler G. Incoherent dose-escalation in phase i trials using the escalation with overdose control approach. Stat Papers. 2018; 59(2):801–11.CrossRef Wheeler G. Incoherent dose-escalation in phase i trials using the escalation with overdose control approach. Stat Papers. 2018; 59(2):801–11.CrossRef
76.
go back to reference Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri F, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase i trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(31):4982–6.CrossRef Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri F, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase i trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(31):4982–6.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Le Tourneau C, Gan H, Razak A, Paoletti X. Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase i trials of molecularly targeted agents. PloS one. 2012; 7(12):51039.CrossRef Le Tourneau C, Gan H, Razak A, Paoletti X. Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase i trials of molecularly targeted agents. PloS one. 2012; 7(12):51039.CrossRef
78.
go back to reference Rivoirard R, Vallard A, Langrand-Escure J, Mrad M, Wang G, Guy J-B, Diao P, Dubanchet A, Deutsch E, Rancoule C, et al. Thirty years of phase i radiochemotherapy trials: latest development. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 58:1–7.CrossRef Rivoirard R, Vallard A, Langrand-Escure J, Mrad M, Wang G, Guy J-B, Diao P, Dubanchet A, Deutsch E, Rancoule C, et al. Thirty years of phase i radiochemotherapy trials: latest development. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 58:1–7.CrossRef
79.
go back to reference Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3+ 3 design for phase i trials. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(9):1808–12.CrossRef Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3+ 3 design for phase i trials. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(9):1808–12.CrossRef
80.
go back to reference Jaki T, Clive S, Weir C. Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: a comparison of trial designs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013; 71(5):1107–14.CrossRef Jaki T, Clive S, Weir C. Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: a comparison of trial designs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013; 71(5):1107–14.CrossRef
81.
go back to reference Mandrekar S, Cui Y, Sargent D. An adaptive phase i design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med. 2007; 26(11):2317–30.CrossRef Mandrekar S, Cui Y, Sargent D. An adaptive phase i design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med. 2007; 26(11):2317–30.CrossRef
82.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Hughes M, Fenton T. Dose-finding designs for hiv studies. Biometrics. 2001; 57(4):1018–29.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Hughes M, Fenton T. Dose-finding designs for hiv studies. Biometrics. 2001; 57(4):1018–29.CrossRef
83.
go back to reference Lu N, Crespi C, Liu N, Vu J, Ahmadieh Y, Wu S, Lin S, McClune A, Durazo F, Saab S, et al. A phase i dose escalation study demonstrates quercetin safety and explores potential for bioflavonoid antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis c. Phytother Res. 2016; 30(1):160–8.CrossRef Lu N, Crespi C, Liu N, Vu J, Ahmadieh Y, Wu S, Lin S, McClune A, Durazo F, Saab S, et al. A phase i dose escalation study demonstrates quercetin safety and explores potential for bioflavonoid antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis c. Phytother Res. 2016; 30(1):160–8.CrossRef
84.
go back to reference Whitehead J, Zhou Y, Stevens J, Blakey G, Price J, Leadbetter J. Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit. Stat Med. 2006; 25(1):37–53.CrossRef Whitehead J, Zhou Y, Stevens J, Blakey G, Price J, Leadbetter J. Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit. Stat Med. 2006; 25(1):37–53.CrossRef
85.
go back to reference Lyden P, Pryor K, Coffey C, Cudkowicz M, Conwit R, Jadhav A, Sawyer Jr R, Claassen J, Adeoye O, Song S, et al. Randomized, controlled, dose escalation trial of a protease-activated receptor-1 agonist in acute ischemic stroke: final results of the rhapsody trial.: a multi-center, phase 2 trial using a continual reassessment method to determine the safety and tolerability of 3k3a-apc, a recombinant variant of human activated protein c, in combination with tissue plasminogen activator, mechanical thrombectomy or both in moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2019; 85(1):125.CrossRef Lyden P, Pryor K, Coffey C, Cudkowicz M, Conwit R, Jadhav A, Sawyer Jr R, Claassen J, Adeoye O, Song S, et al. Randomized, controlled, dose escalation trial of a protease-activated receptor-1 agonist in acute ischemic stroke: final results of the rhapsody trial.: a multi-center, phase 2 trial using a continual reassessment method to determine the safety and tolerability of 3k3a-apc, a recombinant variant of human activated protein c, in combination with tissue plasminogen activator, mechanical thrombectomy or both in moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2019; 85(1):125.CrossRef
86.
go back to reference Yuan Y, Hess K, Hilsenbeck S, Gilbert M. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase i oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(17):4291–301.CrossRef Yuan Y, Hess K, Hilsenbeck S, Gilbert M. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase i oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(17):4291–301.CrossRef
87.
go back to reference Zhang L, Yuan Y. A practical bayesian design to identify the maximum tolerated dose contour for drug combination trials. Stat Med. 2016; 35(27):4924–36.CrossRef Zhang L, Yuan Y. A practical bayesian design to identify the maximum tolerated dose contour for drug combination trials. Stat Med. 2016; 35(27):4924–36.CrossRef
88.
go back to reference Haines L, Perevozskaya I, Rosenberger W. Bayesian optimal designs for phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 2003; 59(3):591–600.CrossRef Haines L, Perevozskaya I, Rosenberger W. Bayesian optimal designs for phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 2003; 59(3):591–600.CrossRef
89.
go back to reference Azriel D. Optimal sequential designs in phase i studies. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014; 71:288–97.CrossRef Azriel D. Optimal sequential designs in phase i studies. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014; 71:288–97.CrossRef
90.
go back to reference Haines L, Clark A. The construction of optimal designs for dose-escalation studies. Stat Comput. 2014; 24(1):101–9.CrossRef Haines L, Clark A. The construction of optimal designs for dose-escalation studies. Stat Comput. 2014; 24(1):101–9.CrossRef
91.
go back to reference Liu S, Yuan Y. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase i clinical trials. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2015; 64(3):507–23.CrossRef Liu S, Yuan Y. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase i clinical trials. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2015; 64(3):507–23.CrossRef
92.
go back to reference Gasparini M, Eisele J. A curve-free method for phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):609–15.CrossRef Gasparini M, Eisele J. A curve-free method for phase i clinical trials. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):609–15.CrossRef
93.
go back to reference Mander A, Sweeting M. A product of independent beta probabilities dose escalation design for dual-agent phase i trials. Stat Med. 2015; 34(8):1261–76.CrossRef Mander A, Sweeting M. A product of independent beta probabilities dose escalation design for dual-agent phase i trials. Stat Med. 2015; 34(8):1261–76.CrossRef
94.
go back to reference Mozgunov P, Jaki T. An information theoretic phase i–ii design for molecularly targeted agents that does not require an assumption of monotonicity. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2019; 68(2):347–67.CrossRef Mozgunov P, Jaki T. An information theoretic phase i–ii design for molecularly targeted agents that does not require an assumption of monotonicity. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2019; 68(2):347–67.CrossRef
95.
go back to reference LoRusso P, Boerner S, Seymour L. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase i studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16(6):1710–8.CrossRef LoRusso P, Boerner S, Seymour L. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase i studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16(6):1710–8.CrossRef
96.
go back to reference Chevret S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only?Stat Med. 2012; 31(11-12):1002–13.CrossRef Chevret S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only?Stat Med. 2012; 31(11-12):1002–13.CrossRef
97.
go back to reference Jaki T. Multi-arm clinical trials with treatment selection: what can be gained and at what price?Clin Investig. 2015; 5(4):393–9.CrossRef Jaki T. Multi-arm clinical trials with treatment selection: what can be gained and at what price?Clin Investig. 2015; 5(4):393–9.CrossRef
98.
go back to reference Stallard N, Todd S. Sequential designs for phase iii clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med. 2003; 22(5):689–703.CrossRef Stallard N, Todd S. Sequential designs for phase iii clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med. 2003; 22(5):689–703.CrossRef
99.
go back to reference Magirr D, Jaki T, Whitehead J. A generalized dunnett test for multi-arm multi-stage clinical studies with treatment selection. Biometrika. 2012; 99(2):494–501.CrossRef Magirr D, Jaki T, Whitehead J. A generalized dunnett test for multi-arm multi-stage clinical studies with treatment selection. Biometrika. 2012; 99(2):494–501.CrossRef
100.
go back to reference Bauer P, Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med. 1999; 18(14):1833–48.CrossRef Bauer P, Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med. 1999; 18(14):1833–48.CrossRef
101.
go back to reference Bretz F, Schmidli H, König F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):623–34.CrossRef Bretz F, Schmidli H, König F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):623–34.CrossRef
102.
go back to reference Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):635–43.CrossRef Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):635–43.CrossRef
103.
go back to reference Jaki T, Pallmann P, Magirr D. The r package mams for designing multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials. J Stat Softw. 2019; 88(4). Jaki T, Pallmann P, Magirr D. The r package mams for designing multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials. J Stat Softw. 2019; 88(4).
104.
go back to reference Royston P, Bratton D, Choodari-Oskooei B, Barthel F-S. Nstage: Stata module for multi-arm, multi-stage (mams) trial designs for time-to-event outcomes. 2019. Boston College Department of Economics. Royston P, Bratton D, Choodari-Oskooei B, Barthel F-S. Nstage: Stata module for multi-arm, multi-stage (mams) trial designs for time-to-event outcomes. 2019. Boston College Department of Economics.
105.
go back to reference Bratton D. Nstagebin: Stata module to perform sample size calculation for multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trials with binary outcomes. 2014. Boston College Department of Economics. Bratton D. Nstagebin: Stata module to perform sample size calculation for multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trials with binary outcomes. 2014. Boston College Department of Economics.
106.
go back to reference Grayling M. Desma: Stata module to design and simulate (adaptive) multi-arm clinical trials. 2019. Boston College Department of Economics. Grayling M. Desma: Stata module to design and simulate (adaptive) multi-arm clinical trials. 2019. Boston College Department of Economics.
107.
go back to reference Pushpakom S, Taylor C, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Spowart C, Vora J, García-Fiñana M, Kemp G, Whitehead J, Jaki T, Khoo S, et al.Telmisartan and insulin resistance in hiv (tailor): protocol for a dose-ranging phase ii randomised open-labelled trial of telmisartan as a strategy for the reduction of insulin resistance in hiv-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(10). Pushpakom S, Taylor C, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Spowart C, Vora J, García-Fiñana M, Kemp G, Whitehead J, Jaki T, Khoo S, et al.Telmisartan and insulin resistance in hiv (tailor): protocol for a dose-ranging phase ii randomised open-labelled trial of telmisartan as a strategy for the reduction of insulin resistance in hiv-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(10).
108.
go back to reference Pushpakom S, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Taylor C, Foster T, Spowart C, García-Fiñana M, Kemp G, Jaki T, Khoo S, Williamson P, Pirmohamed M, for the TAILoR Study Group. TAILoR (TelmisArtan and InsuLin Resistance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV]): an adaptive-design, dose-ranging phase IIb randomized trial of telmisartan for the reduction of insulin resistance in HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz589. Pushpakom S, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Taylor C, Foster T, Spowart C, García-Fiñana M, Kemp G, Jaki T, Khoo S, Williamson P, Pirmohamed M, for the TAILoR Study Group. TAILoR (TelmisArtan and InsuLin Resistance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV]): an adaptive-design, dose-ranging phase IIb randomized trial of telmisartan for the reduction of insulin resistance in HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​cid/​ciz589.
109.
go back to reference Dumville J, Hahn S, Miles J, Torgerson D. The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006; 27(1):1–12.CrossRef Dumville J, Hahn S, Miles J, Torgerson D. The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006; 27(1):1–12.CrossRef
110.
go back to reference Meurer W, Lewis R, Berry D. Adaptive clinical trials: a partial remedy for the therapeutic misconception?JAMA. 2012; 307(22):2377–8.CrossRef Meurer W, Lewis R, Berry D. Adaptive clinical trials: a partial remedy for the therapeutic misconception?JAMA. 2012; 307(22):2377–8.CrossRef
111.
go back to reference Parmar M, Barthel F-S, Sydes M, Langley R, Kaplan R, Eisenhauer E, Brady M, James N, Bookman M, Swart A-M, et al. Speeding up the evaluation of new agents in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100(17):1204–14.CrossRef Parmar M, Barthel F-S, Sydes M, Langley R, Kaplan R, Eisenhauer E, Brady M, James N, Bookman M, Swart A-M, et al. Speeding up the evaluation of new agents in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100(17):1204–14.CrossRef
112.
go back to reference Thall P, Simon R, Ellenberg S. A two-stage design for choosing among several experimental treatments and a control in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989; 45(2):537–47.CrossRef Thall P, Simon R, Ellenberg S. A two-stage design for choosing among several experimental treatments and a control in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989; 45(2):537–47.CrossRef
113.
go back to reference Sampson A, Sill M. Drop-the-losers design: normal case. Biom J. 2005; 47(3):257–68.CrossRef Sampson A, Sill M. Drop-the-losers design: normal case. Biom J. 2005; 47(3):257–68.CrossRef
114.
go back to reference Wason J, Stallard N, Bowden J, Jennison C. A multi-stage drop-the-losers design for multi-arm clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(1):508–24.CrossRef Wason J, Stallard N, Bowden J, Jennison C. A multi-stage drop-the-losers design for multi-arm clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(1):508–24.CrossRef
115.
go back to reference Zádori N, Gede N, Antal J, Szentesi A, Alizadeh H, Vincze A, Izbéki F, Papp M, Czakó L, Varga M, et al. Early elimination of fatty acids in hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (ELEFANT trial): Protocol of an open-label, multicenter, adaptive randomized clinical trial. Pancreatology. 2019; 20(3):369–76.CrossRef Zádori N, Gede N, Antal J, Szentesi A, Alizadeh H, Vincze A, Izbéki F, Papp M, Czakó L, Varga M, et al. Early elimination of fatty acids in hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (ELEFANT trial): Protocol of an open-label, multicenter, adaptive randomized clinical trial. Pancreatology. 2019; 20(3):369–76.CrossRef
116.
go back to reference Thompson W. On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika. 1933; 25(3/4):285–94.CrossRef Thompson W. On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika. 1933; 25(3/4):285–94.CrossRef
117.
go back to reference Berry D, Eick S. Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Stat Med. 1995; 14(3):231–46.CrossRef Berry D, Eick S. Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Stat Med. 1995; 14(3):231–46.CrossRef
118.
go back to reference Hu F, Rosenberger W. The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.CrossRef Hu F, Rosenberger W. The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.CrossRef
119.
go back to reference Wason J, Trippa L. A comparison of Bayesian adaptive randomization and multi-stage designs for multi-arm clinical trials. Stat Med. 2014; 33(13):2206–21.CrossRef Wason J, Trippa L. A comparison of Bayesian adaptive randomization and multi-stage designs for multi-arm clinical trials. Stat Med. 2014; 33(13):2206–21.CrossRef
120.
go back to reference Lin J, Bunn V. Comparison of multi-arm multi-stage design and adaptive randomization in platform clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017; 54:48–59.CrossRef Lin J, Bunn V. Comparison of multi-arm multi-stage design and adaptive randomization in platform clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017; 54:48–59.CrossRef
121.
go back to reference Lotze T, Loecher M. Bandit: functions for simple A/B split test and multi-armed bandit analysis. 2015. R package version 0.5.0. Lotze T, Loecher M. Bandit: functions for simple A/B split test and multi-armed bandit analysis. 2015. R package version 0.5.0.
122.
go back to reference Giles F, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, Garcia-Manero G, Verstovsek S, Faderl S, Thomas D, Ferrajoli A, O’Brien S, Wathen J, et al. Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(9):1722–7.CrossRef Giles F, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, Garcia-Manero G, Verstovsek S, Faderl S, Thomas D, Ferrajoli A, O’Brien S, Wathen J, et al. Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(9):1722–7.CrossRef
123.
go back to reference Grieve A. Response-adaptive clinical trials: case studies in the medical literature. Pharm Stat. 2017; 16(1):64–86.CrossRef Grieve A. Response-adaptive clinical trials: case studies in the medical literature. Pharm Stat. 2017; 16(1):64–86.CrossRef
124.
go back to reference Villar S, Bowden J, Wason J. Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: how to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?Pharm Stat. 2018; 17(2):182–97.CrossRef Villar S, Bowden J, Wason J. Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: how to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?Pharm Stat. 2018; 17(2):182–97.CrossRef
125.
go back to reference Gutjahr G, Posch M, Brannath W. Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive two-stage designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2011; 21(4):818–30.CrossRef Gutjahr G, Posch M, Brannath W. Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive two-stage designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2011; 21(4):818–30.CrossRef
126.
go back to reference Robertson D, Wason J. Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive trials. Biometrics. 2019; 75(3):885–94.CrossRef Robertson D, Wason J. Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive trials. Biometrics. 2019; 75(3):885–94.CrossRef
127.
go back to reference London A. Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation. J Med Ethics. 2018; 44(6):409–15.CrossRef London A. Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation. J Med Ethics. 2018; 44(6):409–15.CrossRef
128.
go back to reference Tehranisa J, Meurer W. Can response-adaptive randomization increase participation in acute stroke trials?Stroke. 2014; 45(7):2131–3.CrossRef Tehranisa J, Meurer W. Can response-adaptive randomization increase participation in acute stroke trials?Stroke. 2014; 45(7):2131–3.CrossRef
129.
go back to reference Hu F, Rosenberger W. Optimality, variability, power: evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2003; 98(463):671–8.CrossRef Hu F, Rosenberger W. Optimality, variability, power: evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2003; 98(463):671–8.CrossRef
130.
go back to reference Berry D. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 29(6):606–9.CrossRef Berry D. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 29(6):606–9.CrossRef
131.
go back to reference Proschan M, Evans S. The temptation of response-adaptive randomization. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. Proschan M, Evans S. The temptation of response-adaptive randomization. Clin Infect Dis. 2020.
132.
go back to reference Korn E, Freidlin B. Outcome-adaptive randomization: is it useful?J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(6):771.CrossRef Korn E, Freidlin B. Outcome-adaptive randomization: is it useful?J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(6):771.CrossRef
133.
go back to reference Viele K, Broglio K, McGlothlin A, Saville B. Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization. Clin Trials. 2020; 17(1):52–60.CrossRef Viele K, Broglio K, McGlothlin A, Saville B. Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization. Clin Trials. 2020; 17(1):52–60.CrossRef
134.
go back to reference Smith A, Villar S. Bayesian adaptive bandit-based designs using the gittins index for multi-armed trials with normally distributed endpoints. J Appl Stat. 2018; 45(6):1052–76.CrossRef Smith A, Villar S. Bayesian adaptive bandit-based designs using the gittins index for multi-armed trials with normally distributed endpoints. J Appl Stat. 2018; 45(6):1052–76.CrossRef
135.
go back to reference Bowden J, Trippa L. Unbiased estimation for response adaptive clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(5):2376–88.CrossRef Bowden J, Trippa L. Unbiased estimation for response adaptive clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(5):2376–88.CrossRef
136.
go back to reference Simon R, Simon N. Using randomization tests to preserve type i error with response adaptive and covariate adaptive randomization. Stat Probab Lett. 2011; 81(7):767–72.CrossRef Simon R, Simon N. Using randomization tests to preserve type i error with response adaptive and covariate adaptive randomization. Stat Probab Lett. 2011; 81(7):767–72.CrossRef
137.
go back to reference Xub X, Bretz F. Handbook of methods for designing, monitoring, and analyzing dose-finding trials In: O’Quigley J, Iasonos A, Bornkamp B, editors. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: 2017. p. 205–27. Chap. 12. Xub X, Bretz F. Handbook of methods for designing, monitoring, and analyzing dose-finding trials In: O’Quigley J, Iasonos A, Bornkamp B, editors. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: 2017. p. 205–27. Chap. 12.
138.
go back to reference Bretz F, Pinheiro J, Branson M. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics. 2005; 61(3):738–48.CrossRef Bretz F, Pinheiro J, Branson M. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics. 2005; 61(3):738–48.CrossRef
139.
go back to reference Pinheiro J, Bornkamp B, Glimm E, Bretz F. Model-based dose finding under model uncertainty using general parametric models. Stat Med. 2014; 33(10):1646–61.CrossRef Pinheiro J, Bornkamp B, Glimm E, Bretz F. Model-based dose finding under model uncertainty using general parametric models. Stat Med. 2014; 33(10):1646–61.CrossRef
140.
go back to reference Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G. Akaike information criterion statistics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. 1986;81. Taylor & Francis. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G. Akaike information criterion statistics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. 1986;81. Taylor & Francis.
141.
go back to reference Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F, et al. Mcpmod: An r package for the design and analysis of dose-finding studies. J Stat Softw. 2009; 29(7):1–23.CrossRef Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F, et al. Mcpmod: An r package for the design and analysis of dose-finding studies. J Stat Softw. 2009; 29(7):1–23.CrossRef
142.
go back to reference Verrier D, Sivapregassam S, Solente A-C. Dose-finding studies, mcp-mod, model selection, and model averaging: Two applications in the real world. Clin Trials. 2014; 11(4):476–84.CrossRef Verrier D, Sivapregassam S, Solente A-C. Dose-finding studies, mcp-mod, model selection, and model averaging: Two applications in the real world. Clin Trials. 2014; 11(4):476–84.CrossRef
144.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency. Qualification Opinion of MCP-Mod as an efficient statistical methodology for model-based design and analysis of Phase II dose finding studies under model uncertainty. 2014. European Medicines Agency. Qualification Opinion of MCP-Mod as an efficient statistical methodology for model-based design and analysis of Phase II dose finding studies under model uncertainty. 2014.
147.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration. FDA qualification of mcp-mod method. 2015. Food and Drug Administration. FDA qualification of mcp-mod method. 2015.
148.
go back to reference Angus D, Alexander B, Berry S, Buxton M, Lewis R, Paoloni M, Webb S, Arnold S, Barker A, Berry D, et al. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019; 18(10):797.CrossRef Angus D, Alexander B, Berry S, Buxton M, Lewis R, Paoloni M, Webb S, Arnold S, Barker A, Berry D, et al. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019; 18(10):797.CrossRef
149.
go back to reference Antoniou M, Jorgensen A, Kolamunnage-Dona R. Biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs in phase ii and phase iii: a methodological review. PloS one. 2016; 11(2):0149803.CrossRef Antoniou M, Jorgensen A, Kolamunnage-Dona R. Biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs in phase ii and phase iii: a methodological review. PloS one. 2016; 11(2):0149803.CrossRef
150.
go back to reference Pocock S, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975; 31(1):103–15.CrossRef Pocock S, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975; 31(1):103–15.CrossRef
151.
go back to reference Taves D. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974; 15(5):443–53.CrossRef Taves D. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974; 15(5):443–53.CrossRef
152.
go back to reference Altman D, Bland J. Treatment allocation by minimisation. Bmj. 2005; 330(7495):843.CrossRef Altman D, Bland J. Treatment allocation by minimisation. Bmj. 2005; 330(7495):843.CrossRef
153.
go back to reference Scott N, McPherson G, Ramsay C, Campbell M. The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. Control Clin Trials. 2002; 23(6):662–74.CrossRef Scott N, McPherson G, Ramsay C, Campbell M. The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. Control Clin Trials. 2002; 23(6):662–74.CrossRef
154.
go back to reference Atkinson A. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika. 1982; 69(1):61–7.CrossRef Atkinson A. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika. 1982; 69(1):61–7.CrossRef
155.
go back to reference Rosenberger W, Vidyashankar A, Agarwal D. Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs for binary response. J Biopharm Stat. 2001; 11(4):227–36.CrossRef Rosenberger W, Vidyashankar A, Agarwal D. Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs for binary response. J Biopharm Stat. 2001; 11(4):227–36.CrossRef
156.
go back to reference Kim E, Herbst R, Wistuba I, Lee J, Blumenschein G, Tsao A, Stewart D, Hicks M, Erasmus J, Gupta S, et al. The battle trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011; 1(1):44–53.CrossRef Kim E, Herbst R, Wistuba I, Lee J, Blumenschein G, Tsao A, Stewart D, Hicks M, Erasmus J, Gupta S, et al. The battle trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011; 1(1):44–53.CrossRef
157.
go back to reference Zhou X, Liu S, Kim E, Herbst R, Lee J. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer a step toward personalized medicine. Clin Trials. 2008; 5(3):181–93.CrossRef Zhou X, Liu S, Kim E, Herbst R, Lee J. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer a step toward personalized medicine. Clin Trials. 2008; 5(3):181–93.CrossRef
158.
go back to reference Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel K. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976; 63(3):655–60.CrossRef Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel K. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976; 63(3):655–60.CrossRef
159.
go back to reference Brannath W, Zuber E, Branson M, Bretz F, Gallo P, Posch M, Racine-Poon A. Confirmatory adaptive designs with bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat Med. 2009; 28(10):1445–63.CrossRef Brannath W, Zuber E, Branson M, Bretz F, Gallo P, Posch M, Racine-Poon A. Confirmatory adaptive designs with bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat Med. 2009; 28(10):1445–63.CrossRef
160.
go back to reference Burnett T. Bayesian decision making in adaptive clinical trials. PhD thesis, University of Bath. 2017. Burnett T. Bayesian decision making in adaptive clinical trials. PhD thesis, University of Bath. 2017.
161.
go back to reference Ondra T, Jobjörnsson S, Beckman R, Burman C-F, König F, Stallard N, Posch M. Optimized adaptive enrichment designs. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019; 28(7):2096–111.CrossRef Ondra T, Jobjörnsson S, Beckman R, Burman C-F, König F, Stallard N, Posch M. Optimized adaptive enrichment designs. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019; 28(7):2096–111.CrossRef
162.
go back to reference Götte H, Donica M, Mordenti G. Improving probabilities of correct interim decision in population enrichment designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2015; 25(5):1020–38.CrossRef Götte H, Donica M, Mordenti G. Improving probabilities of correct interim decision in population enrichment designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2015; 25(5):1020–38.CrossRef
163.
go back to reference Magnusson B, Turnbull B. Group sequential enrichment design incorporating subgroup selection. Stat Med. 2013; 32(16):2695–714.CrossRef Magnusson B, Turnbull B. Group sequential enrichment design incorporating subgroup selection. Stat Med. 2013; 32(16):2695–714.CrossRef
164.
go back to reference Jones R, Attia S, Mehta C, Liu L, Sankhala K, Robinson S, Ravi V, Penel N, Stacchiotti S, Tap W, et al.Tappas: an adaptive enrichment phase 3 trial of trc105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35. Jones R, Attia S, Mehta C, Liu L, Sankhala K, Robinson S, Ravi V, Penel N, Stacchiotti S, Tap W, et al.Tappas: an adaptive enrichment phase 3 trial of trc105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35.
165.
go back to reference Mehta C, Liu L, Theuer C. An adaptive population enrichment phase iii trial of trc105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (tappas trial). Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(1):103–8.CrossRef Mehta C, Liu L, Theuer C. An adaptive population enrichment phase iii trial of trc105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (tappas trial). Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(1):103–8.CrossRef
166.
go back to reference Mehta C, Pocock S. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011; 30(28):3267–84.CrossRef Mehta C, Pocock S. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011; 30(28):3267–84.CrossRef
167.
go back to reference Wan F, Titman A, Jaki T. Subgroup analysis of treatment effects for misclassified biomarkers with time-to-event data. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2019; 68(5):1447–63.CrossRef Wan F, Titman A, Jaki T. Subgroup analysis of treatment effects for misclassified biomarkers with time-to-event data. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 2019; 68(5):1447–63.CrossRef
168.
go back to reference 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(21):7872–8.CrossRef 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(21):7872–8.CrossRef
169.
go back to reference Bhattacharyya A, Rai S. Adaptive signature design-review of the biomarker guided adaptive phase–iii controlled design. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019; 15:100378.CrossRef Bhattacharyya A, Rai S. Adaptive signature design-review of the biomarker guided adaptive phase–iii controlled design. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019; 15:100378.CrossRef
170.
go back to reference Chen J, Lu T-P, Chen D-T, Wang S-J. Biomarker adaptive designs in clinical trials. Transl Cancer Res. 2014; 3(3):279–92. Chen J, Lu T-P, Chen D-T, Wang S-J. Biomarker adaptive designs in clinical trials. Transl Cancer Res. 2014; 3(3):279–92.
171.
go back to reference Wason J, Marshall A, Dunn J, Stein R, Stallard N. Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110(8):1950–7.CrossRef Wason J, Marshall A, Dunn J, Stein R, Stallard N. Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110(8):1950–7.CrossRef
172.
go back to reference Park J, Siden E, Zoratti M, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, Lester R, Thorlund K, Mills E. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019; 20(1):1–10.CrossRef Park J, Siden E, Zoratti M, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, Lester R, Thorlund K, Mills E. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019; 20(1):1–10.CrossRef
173.
go back to reference Cunanan K, Iasonos A, Shen R, Begg C, Gönen M. An efficient basket trial design. Stat Med. 2017; 36(10):1568–79. Cunanan K, Iasonos A, Shen R, Begg C, Gönen M. An efficient basket trial design. Stat Med. 2017; 36(10):1568–79.
174.
go back to reference Hatfield I, Allison A, Flight L, Julious S, Dimairo M. Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials. Trials. 2016; 17(1):150.CrossRef Hatfield I, Allison A, Flight L, Julious S, Dimairo M. Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials. Trials. 2016; 17(1):150.CrossRef
175.
go back to reference O’Brien P, Fleming T. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979; 35(3):549–56.CrossRef O’Brien P, Fleming T. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979; 35(3):549–56.CrossRef
176.
go back to reference Gordon Lan K, DeMets D. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983; 70(3):659–63.CrossRef Gordon Lan K, DeMets D. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983; 70(3):659–63.CrossRef
177.
go back to reference Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.CrossRef Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.CrossRef
178.
go back to reference Jennison C, Turnbull B. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1999. Jennison C, Turnbull B. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1999.
179.
go back to reference Whitehead J. Group sequential trials revisited: simple implementation using sas. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011; 20(6):635–56.CrossRef Whitehead J. Group sequential trials revisited: simple implementation using sas. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011; 20(6):635–56.CrossRef
180.
go back to reference Anderson K. gsDesign: an R Package for designing group sequential clinical trials. 2009. Version 2.0 Manual. Anderson K. gsDesign: an R Package for designing group sequential clinical trials. 2009. Version 2.0 Manual.
181.
go back to reference Wason J. Optgs: an r package for finding near-optimal group-sequential designs. J Stat Softw. 2013. Wason J. Optgs: an r package for finding near-optimal group-sequential designs. J Stat Softw. 2013.
182.
go back to reference Boden W, van Gilst W, Scheldewaert R, Starkey I, Carlier M, Julian D, Whitehead A, Bertrand M, Col J, Pedersen O, et al. Diltiazem in acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic agents: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 355(9217):1751–6.CrossRef Boden W, van Gilst W, Scheldewaert R, Starkey I, Carlier M, Julian D, Whitehead A, Bertrand M, Col J, Pedersen O, et al. Diltiazem in acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic agents: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 355(9217):1751–6.CrossRef
183.
go back to reference Boden W, Scheldewaert R, Walters E, Whitehead A, Coltart D, Santoni J-P, Belgrave G. Design of a placebo-controlled clinical trial of long-acting diltiazem and aspirin versus aspirin alone in patients receiving thrombolysis with a first acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1995; 75(16):1120–3.CrossRef Boden W, Scheldewaert R, Walters E, Whitehead A, Coltart D, Santoni J-P, Belgrave G. Design of a placebo-controlled clinical trial of long-acting diltiazem and aspirin versus aspirin alone in patients receiving thrombolysis with a first acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1995; 75(16):1120–3.CrossRef
184.
go back to reference Proschan M. Sample size re-estimation in clinical trials. Biom J. 2009; 51(2):348–57.CrossRef Proschan M. Sample size re-estimation in clinical trials. Biom J. 2009; 51(2):348–57.CrossRef
185.
go back to reference Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):537–55.CrossRef Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):537–55.CrossRef
186.
go back to reference Chuang-Stein C, Anderson K, Gallo P, Collins S. Sample size reestimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):475–84.CrossRef Chuang-Stein C, Anderson K, Gallo P, Collins S. Sample size reestimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):475–84.CrossRef
187.
go back to reference Wang S-J, James Hung H, O’Neill R. Paradigms for adaptive statistical information designs: practical experiences and strategies. Stat Med. 2012; 31(25):3011–23.CrossRef Wang S-J, James Hung H, O’Neill R. Paradigms for adaptive statistical information designs: practical experiences and strategies. Stat Med. 2012; 31(25):3011–23.CrossRef
188.
go back to reference Pritchett Y, Menon S, Marchenko O, Antonijevic Z, Miller E, Sanchez-Kam M, Morgan-Bouniol C, Nguyen H, Prucka W. Sample size re-estimation designs in confirmatory clinical trials-current state, statistical considerations, and practical guidance. Stat Biopharm Res. 2015; 7(4):309–21.CrossRef Pritchett Y, Menon S, Marchenko O, Antonijevic Z, Miller E, Sanchez-Kam M, Morgan-Bouniol C, Nguyen H, Prucka W. Sample size re-estimation designs in confirmatory clinical trials-current state, statistical considerations, and practical guidance. Stat Biopharm Res. 2015; 7(4):309–21.CrossRef
189.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
190.
go back to reference Lachin J. A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power. Stat Med. 2005; 24(18):2747–64.CrossRef Lachin J. A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power. Stat Med. 2005; 24(18):2747–64.CrossRef
191.
go back to reference Broglio K, Connor J, Berry S. Not too big, not too small: a goldilocks approach to sample size selection. J Biopharm Stat. 2014; 24(3):685–705.CrossRef Broglio K, Connor J, Berry S. Not too big, not too small: a goldilocks approach to sample size selection. J Biopharm Stat. 2014; 24(3):685–705.CrossRef
192.
go back to reference Zucker D, Wittes J, Schabenberger O, Brittain E. Internal pilot studies ii: comparison of various procedures. Stat Med. 1999; 18(24):3493–509.CrossRef Zucker D, Wittes J, Schabenberger O, Brittain E. Internal pilot studies ii: comparison of various procedures. Stat Med. 1999; 18(24):3493–509.CrossRef
193.
go back to reference Kieser M, Friede T. Simple procedures for blinded sample size adjustment that do not affect the type i error rate. Stat Med. 2003; 22(23):3571–81.CrossRef Kieser M, Friede T. Simple procedures for blinded sample size adjustment that do not affect the type i error rate. Stat Med. 2003; 22(23):3571–81.CrossRef
194.
go back to reference Graf A, Bauer P, Glimm E, Koenig F. Maximum type 1 error rate inflation in multiarmed clinical trials with adaptive interim sample size modifications: Maximum type 1 error inflation. Biom J. 2014; 56(4):614–30.CrossRef Graf A, Bauer P, Glimm E, Koenig F. Maximum type 1 error rate inflation in multiarmed clinical trials with adaptive interim sample size modifications: Maximum type 1 error inflation. Biom J. 2014; 56(4):614–30.CrossRef
195.
go back to reference Hade E, Young G, Love R. Follow up after sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer randomized trial for disease-free survival. Trials. 2019; 20(1):527.CrossRef Hade E, Young G, Love R. Follow up after sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer randomized trial for disease-free survival. Trials. 2019; 20(1):527.CrossRef
196.
go back to reference Gould A. Sample size re-estimation: recent developments and practical considerations. Stat Med. 2001; 20(17?18):2625–43.CrossRef Gould A. Sample size re-estimation: recent developments and practical considerations. Stat Med. 2001; 20(17?18):2625–43.CrossRef
197.
go back to reference Wason J, Brocklehurst P, Yap C. When to keep it simple–adaptive designs are not always useful. BMC Med. 2019; 17(1):1–7.CrossRef Wason J, Brocklehurst P, Yap C. When to keep it simple–adaptive designs are not always useful. BMC Med. 2019; 17(1):1–7.CrossRef
198.
go back to reference Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials with an adaptive design. London: European Medicines Agency; 2007. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials with an adaptive design. London: European Medicines Agency; 2007.
200.
go back to reference Dimairo M, Pallmann P, Wason J, Todd S, Jaki T, Julious S, Mander A, Weir C, Koenig F, Walton M, et al.The adaptive designs consort extension (ace) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design. BMJ. 2019;369. Dimairo M, Pallmann P, Wason J, Todd S, Jaki T, Julious S, Mander A, Weir C, Koenig F, Walton M, et al.The adaptive designs consort extension (ace) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design. BMJ. 2019;369.
201.
go back to reference Jennison C, Turnbull B. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: opportunities and limitations. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):650–5.CrossRef Jennison C, Turnbull B. Confirmatory seamless phase ii/iii clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: opportunities and limitations. Biom J. 2006; 48(4):650–5.CrossRef
202.
go back to reference Cuffe R, Lawrence D, Stone A, Vandemeulebroecke M. When is a seamless study desirable? case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors. Pharm Stat. 2014; 13(4):229–37.CrossRef Cuffe R, Lawrence D, Stone A, Vandemeulebroecke M. When is a seamless study desirable? case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors. Pharm Stat. 2014; 13(4):229–37.CrossRef
203.
go back to reference Graham E, Jaki T, Harbron C. A comparison of stochastic programming methods for portfolio level decision-making. J Biopharm Stat. 2019; 13:1–25. Graham E, Jaki T, Harbron C. A comparison of stochastic programming methods for portfolio level decision-making. J Biopharm Stat. 2019; 13:1–25.
204.
go back to reference Wassmer G, Pahlke F. Rpact: confirmatory adaptive clinical trial design and analysis. 2019. R package version 2.0.6. Wassmer G, Pahlke F. Rpact: confirmatory adaptive clinical trial design and analysis. 2019. R package version 2.0.6.
205.
go back to reference Sanchez-Kam M, Gallo P, Loewy J, Menon S, Antonijevic Z, Christensen J, Chuang-Stein C, Laage T. A practical guide to data monitoring committees in adaptive trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014; 48(3):316–26.CrossRef Sanchez-Kam M, Gallo P, Loewy J, Menon S, Antonijevic Z, Christensen J, Chuang-Stein C, Laage T. A practical guide to data monitoring committees in adaptive trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014; 48(3):316–26.CrossRef
206.
go back to reference Chow S-C, Corey R, Lin M. On the independence of data monitoring committee in adaptive design clinical trials. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics. 2012; 22(4):853–67.CrossRef Chow S-C, Corey R, Lin M. On the independence of data monitoring committee in adaptive design clinical trials. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics. 2012; 22(4):853–67.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs
Authors
Thomas Burnett
Pavel Mozgunov
Philip Pallmann
Sofia S. Villar
Graham M. Wheeler
Thomas Jaki
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01808-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medicine 1/2020 Go to the issue