Comparing oncology clinical programs by use of innovative designs and expected net present value optimization: Which adaptive approach leads to the best result?

Tom Parke, Olga Marchenko, Vladimir Anisimov, Anastasia Ivanova, Christopher Jennison, Inna Perevozskaya, Guochen Song

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Designing an oncology clinical program is more challenging than designing a single study. The standard approaches have been proven to be not very successful during the last decade; the failure rate of Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials in oncology remains high. Improving a development strategy by applying innovative statistical methods is one of the major objectives of a drug development process. The oncology sub-team on Adaptive Program under the Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA ADSWG) evaluated hypothetical oncology programs with two competing treatments and published the work in the Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science journal in January 2014. Five oncology development programs based on different Phase 2 designs, including adaptive designs and a standard two parallel arm Phase 3 design were simulated and compared in terms of the probability of clinical program success and expected net present value (eNPV). In this article, we consider eight Phase2/Phase3 development programs based on selected combinations of five Phase 2 study designs and three Phase 3 study designs. We again used the probability of program success and eNPV to compare simulated programs. For the development strategies, we considered that the eNPV showed robust improvement for each successive strategy, with the highest being for a three-arm response adaptive randomization design in Phase 2 and a group sequential design with 5 analyses in Phase 3.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages457-476
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 4 2017

Fingerprint

Net Present Value
Oncology
Medical Oncology
Optimization
Random Allocation
Adaptive Design
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Group Sequential Design
Design
Failure Rate
Therapeutics
Randomisation
Development Process
Statistical method
Drugs

Keywords

  • Adaptive trial design
  • decision analysis
  • expected net present value
  • group sequential design
  • modeling and simulation
  • optimizing drug development
  • probability of success

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Comparing oncology clinical programs by use of innovative designs and expected net present value optimization : Which adaptive approach leads to the best result? / Parke, Tom; Marchenko, Olga; Anisimov, Vladimir; Ivanova, Anastasia; Jennison, Christopher; Perevozskaya, Inna; Song, Guochen.

In: Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Vol. 27, No. 3, 04.05.2017, p. 457-476.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parke, Tom ; Marchenko, Olga ; Anisimov, Vladimir ; Ivanova, Anastasia ; Jennison, Christopher ; Perevozskaya, Inna ; Song, Guochen. / Comparing oncology clinical programs by use of innovative designs and expected net present value optimization : Which adaptive approach leads to the best result?. In: Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 2017 ; Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 457-476
@article{2e7679b7efba474faa6854e9ac3a2b8e,
title = "Comparing oncology clinical programs by use of innovative designs and expected net present value optimization: Which adaptive approach leads to the best result?",
abstract = "Designing an oncology clinical program is more challenging than designing a single study. The standard approaches have been proven to be not very successful during the last decade; the failure rate of Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials in oncology remains high. Improving a development strategy by applying innovative statistical methods is one of the major objectives of a drug development process. The oncology sub-team on Adaptive Program under the Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA ADSWG) evaluated hypothetical oncology programs with two competing treatments and published the work in the Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science journal in January 2014. Five oncology development programs based on different Phase 2 designs, including adaptive designs and a standard two parallel arm Phase 3 design were simulated and compared in terms of the probability of clinical program success and expected net present value (eNPV). In this article, we consider eight Phase2/Phase3 development programs based on selected combinations of five Phase 2 study designs and three Phase 3 study designs. We again used the probability of program success and eNPV to compare simulated programs. For the development strategies, we considered that the eNPV showed robust improvement for each successive strategy, with the highest being for a three-arm response adaptive randomization design in Phase 2 and a group sequential design with 5 analyses in Phase 3.",
keywords = "Adaptive trial design, decision analysis, expected net present value, group sequential design, modeling and simulation, optimizing drug development, probability of success",
author = "Tom Parke and Olga Marchenko and Vladimir Anisimov and Anastasia Ivanova and Christopher Jennison and Inna Perevozskaya and Guochen Song",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1080/10543406.2017.1289949",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "457--476",
journal = "Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics",
issn = "1054-3406",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing oncology clinical programs by use of innovative designs and expected net present value optimization

T2 - Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

AU - Parke,Tom

AU - Marchenko,Olga

AU - Anisimov,Vladimir

AU - Ivanova,Anastasia

AU - Jennison,Christopher

AU - Perevozskaya,Inna

AU - Song,Guochen

PY - 2017/5/4

Y1 - 2017/5/4

N2 - Designing an oncology clinical program is more challenging than designing a single study. The standard approaches have been proven to be not very successful during the last decade; the failure rate of Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials in oncology remains high. Improving a development strategy by applying innovative statistical methods is one of the major objectives of a drug development process. The oncology sub-team on Adaptive Program under the Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA ADSWG) evaluated hypothetical oncology programs with two competing treatments and published the work in the Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science journal in January 2014. Five oncology development programs based on different Phase 2 designs, including adaptive designs and a standard two parallel arm Phase 3 design were simulated and compared in terms of the probability of clinical program success and expected net present value (eNPV). In this article, we consider eight Phase2/Phase3 development programs based on selected combinations of five Phase 2 study designs and three Phase 3 study designs. We again used the probability of program success and eNPV to compare simulated programs. For the development strategies, we considered that the eNPV showed robust improvement for each successive strategy, with the highest being for a three-arm response adaptive randomization design in Phase 2 and a group sequential design with 5 analyses in Phase 3.

AB - Designing an oncology clinical program is more challenging than designing a single study. The standard approaches have been proven to be not very successful during the last decade; the failure rate of Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials in oncology remains high. Improving a development strategy by applying innovative statistical methods is one of the major objectives of a drug development process. The oncology sub-team on Adaptive Program under the Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA ADSWG) evaluated hypothetical oncology programs with two competing treatments and published the work in the Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science journal in January 2014. Five oncology development programs based on different Phase 2 designs, including adaptive designs and a standard two parallel arm Phase 3 design were simulated and compared in terms of the probability of clinical program success and expected net present value (eNPV). In this article, we consider eight Phase2/Phase3 development programs based on selected combinations of five Phase 2 study designs and three Phase 3 study designs. We again used the probability of program success and eNPV to compare simulated programs. For the development strategies, we considered that the eNPV showed robust improvement for each successive strategy, with the highest being for a three-arm response adaptive randomization design in Phase 2 and a group sequential design with 5 analyses in Phase 3.

KW - Adaptive trial design

KW - decision analysis

KW - expected net present value

KW - group sequential design

KW - modeling and simulation

KW - optimizing drug development

KW - probability of success

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014780703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014780703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10543406.2017.1289949

DO - 10.1080/10543406.2017.1289949

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 457

EP - 476

JO - Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

JF - Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

SN - 1054-3406

IS - 3

ER -