1 / 53

BAYESIAN ADAPTIVE DESIGN & INTERIM ANALYSIS

BAYESIAN ADAPTIVE DESIGN & INTERIM ANALYSIS. Donald A. Berry dberry@mdanderson.org. Some references. Berry DA (2003). Statistical Innovations in Cancer Research. In Cancer Medicine e6 . Ch 33. BC Decker. (Ed: Holland J, Frei T et al.)

kuniko
Download Presentation

BAYESIAN ADAPTIVE DESIGN & INTERIM ANALYSIS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BAYESIAN ADAPTIVE DESIGN & INTERIM ANALYSIS Donald A. Berry dberry@mdanderson.org

  2. Some references • Berry DA (2003). Statistical Innovations in Cancer Research. In Cancer Medicine e6. Ch 33. BC Decker. (Ed: Holland J, Frei T et al.) • Berry DA (2004). Bayesian statistics and the efficiency and ethics of clinical trials. Statistical Science.

  3. Benefits • Adapting; examples • Stop early (or late!) • Change doses • Add arms • Drop arms • Final analysis • Greater precision (even full follow-up) • Earlier conclusions

  4. Goals • Learn faster: More efficient trials • More efficient drug/device development • Better treatment of patients in clinical trials

  5. OUTLINE: EXAMPLES • Extraim analysis • Modeling early endpoints • Seamless Phase II/III trial • Adaptive randomization • Phase II trial in AML • Phase II drug screening process • Phase III trial

  6. EXTRAIM ANALYSES* • Endpoint: CR (detect 0.42 vs 0.32) • 80% power: N = 800 • Two extraim analyses, one at 800 • Another after up to 300 added pts • Maximum n = 1400 (only rarely) • Accrual: 70/month • Delay in assessing response *Modeling due to Scott Berry <scott@berryconsultants.com>

  7. After 800 pts accrued, have response info on 450 pts • Find pred prob of stat sig when full info on 800 pts available • Also when full info on 1400 • Continue if . . . • Stop if . . . • If continue, n via pred prob • Repeat at 2nd extraim analysis

  8. vs 0.80

  9. MODELING EARLY ENDPOINTS: LONGITUDINAL MARKERS • Example CA125 in ovarian cancer • Use available data from trial (& outside of trial) to model relationship over time with survival, depending on Rx • Predictive distributions • Use covariates • Seamless phases II & III

  10. CA125 data & predictive distributions of survival for two of many patients* ——> *Modeling due to Scott Berry <scott@berryconsultants.com>

  11. Patient #1 Treatment Days

  12. Patient #1

  13. Patient #2 Days

  14. Patient #2

  15. Methods • Analytical • Multiple imputation

  16. SEAMLESS PHASES II/III* • Early endpoint (tumor response, biomarker) may predict survival? • May depend on treatment • Should model the possibilities • Primary endpoint: survival • But observe relationships *Inoue, et al (2002 Biometrics)

  17. Conventional drug development Survivaladvantage Market Good resp No survivaladvantage Not No resp Stop Phase 3 Phase 2 > 2 yrs 6 mos 9-12 mos Seamless phase 2/3 < 2 yrs (usually)

  18. Seamless phases • Phase 2: 1 or 2 centers; 10 pts/mo, randomize E vs C • If pred probs “look good,” expand to Phase 3: Many centers; 50 pts/mo (Initial centers continue accrual) • Max n = 900 [Single trial: survival data combined in final analysis]

  19. Early stopping • Use pred probs of stat sig • Frequent analyses (total of 18) using pred probs to: • Switch to Phase 3 • Stop accrual for • Futility • Efficacy • Submit NDA

  20. Comparisons Conventional Phase 3 designs: Conv4 & Conv18, max N = 900 (samepower as adaptive design)

  21. Expected N under H0

  22. Expected N under H1

  23. Benefits • Duration of drug development is greatly shortened under adaptive design: • Fewer patients in trial • No hiatus for setting up phase 3 • All patients used for • Phase 3 endpoint • Relation between response & survival

  24. Possibility of large N • N seldom near 900 • When it is, it’s necessary! • This possibility gives Bayesian design its edge [Other reason for edge is modeling response/survival]

  25. ADAPTIVE RANDOMIZATIONGiles, et al JCO (2003) • Troxacitabine (T) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) combined with cytarabine (A) or idarubicin (I) • Adaptive randomization to: IA vs TA vs TI • Max n = 75 • End point: Time to CR (< 50 days)

  26. Adaptive Randomization • Assign 1/3 to IA (standard) throughout (until only 2 arms) • Adaptive to TA and TI based on current results • Results 

  27. Drop TI Compare n = 75

  28. Summary of results CR < 50 days: • IA: 10/18 = 56% • TA: 3/11 = 27% • TI: 0/5 = 0% Criticisms . . .

  29. SCREENING PHASE II DRUGS • Many drugs • Tumor response • Goals: • Treat effectively • Learn quickly

  30. Standard designs • One drug (or dose) at a time; no drug/dose comparisons • Typical comparison by null hypothesis: RR = 20% • Progress hopelessly slow!

  31. Standard 2-stage design First stage 20 patients: • Stop if ≤ 4 or ≥ 9 responses • Else second set of 20

  32. An adaptive allocation • When assigning next patient, find r = P(rate ≥ 20%|data) for each drug • Assign drugs in proportion to r • Add drugs as become available • Drop drugs that have small r • Drugs with large r  phase 3

  33. Suppose 10 drugs, 200 patients Identify nugget … With probability: In average n: 9 drugs have mix of RRs 20% & 40%, 1 has 60% (“nugget”) >99% 110 <70% Adaptive Standard 50 Standard Adaptive Adaptive also better at finding “40%”, & sooner

  34. Suppose 100 drugs, 2000 patients Identify nugget … With probability: In average n: 99 drugs have mix of RRs 20% & 40%, 1 has 60% (“nugget”) >99% 1100 <70% Adaptive Standard 500 Standard Adaptive Adaptive also better at finding “40%”, & sooner

  35. Consequences • Treat pts in trial effectively • Learn quickly • Attractive to patients, in and out of the trial • Better drugs identified sooner; move through faster

  36. PHASE III TRIAL • Dichotomous endpoint • Q = P(pE > pS|data) • Min n = 150; Max n = 600 • After n = 50, assign to arm E with probability Q • Except that 0.2 ≤ P(assign E) ≤ 0.8 • (Not “optimal,” but …)

  37. Recommendation to DSMB to • Stop for superiority if Q ≥ 0.99 • Stop accrual for futility if P(pE – pS < 0.10|data) > PF • PF depends on current n . . .

  38. PF

  39. Common prior density for pE & pS • Independent • Reasonably non-informative • Mean = 0.30 • SD = 0.20

  40. Updating After 20 patients on each arm • 8/20 responses on arm 1 • 12/20 responses on arm 2

  41. Assumptions • Accrual: 10/month • 50-day delay to assess response

  42. Need to stratify. But how? Suppose probability assign to experimental arm is 30%, with these data . . .

  43. One simulation; pS = 0.30, pE = 0.45 Superiority boundary Final Std 12/38 19/60 20/65 Exp 38/83 82/167 87/178

  44. One simulation; pE = pS = 0.30 Futility boundary 9 mos.EndFinal Std 8/39 15/57 18/68 Exp 11/42 32/81 22/87

  45. Operating characteristics

  46. FDA: Why do this? What’s the advantage? • Enthusiasm of PIs • Comparison with standard design . . .

More Related