An adaptive seamless 2-in-1 design with biomarker-driven subgroup enrichment

References

• Chen, C., K. Anderson, D. V. Mehrotra, E. H. Rubin, and A. Tse. 2018. A 2-in-1 adaptive phase 2/3 design for expedited oncology drug development. Contemporary Clinical Trials 64:238–242. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2017.09.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., and L. Sun. 2023. Framing the statistical criteria for accelerated approval of oncology drugs: A pathway for front runners. Contemporary Clinical Trials 132:107295. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, A. J., L. V. Sequist, and J. J. Lin. 2022. Third-generation EGFR and ALK inhibitors: Mechanisms of resistance and management. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 19 (8):499–514. doi:10.1038/s41571-022-00639-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deák, I. 1980. Three digit accurate multiple normal probabilities. Numerische Mathematik 35 (4):369–380. doi:10.1007/BF01399006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facon, T., C. P. Venner, N. J. Bahlis, F. Offner, D. J. White, L. Karlin, L. Benboubker, S. Rigaudeau, P. Rodon, and E. Voog. 2021. Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood, the Journal of the American Society of Hematology 137 (26):3616–3628. doi:10.1182/blood.2020008787.
   Google Scholar
• Friede, T., N. Stallard, and N. Parsons. 2020. Adaptive seamless clinical trials using early outcomes for treatment or subgroup selection: Methods, simulation model and their implementation in R. Biometrical Journal 62 (5):1264–1283. doi:10.1002/bimj.201900020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genz, A. 1992. Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1 (2):141–149. doi:10.1080/10618600.1992.10477010.
   Google Scholar
• Hothorn, T., F. Bretz, and A. Genz. 2001. On multivariate t and Gauss probabilities in R. Sigma 1000:3.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn-Eimermacher, A., and K. Ingel. 2009. Adaptive trial design: A general methodology for censored time to event data. Contemporary Clinical Trials 30 (2):171–177. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2008.12.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, M., A. Stone, and C. Jennison. 2011. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 10 (4):347–356. doi:10.1002/pst.472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, M., and P. Zhang. 2023. An extension to a 2-in-1 adaptive design with biomarker subpopulation selection. Contemporary Clinical Trials 129:107209. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, F., L. Peng, Z. Wu, G. Giamas, and J. Stebbing. 2023. Design and reporting of phase III oncology trials with prospective biomarker validation. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 115 (2):174–180. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li, Q., J. Lin, M. Liu, L. Wu, and Y. Liu. 2021. Utilizing surrogate endpoints in adaptive designs with delayed treatment effect. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 14 (4):661–670. doi:10.1080/19466315.2021.1938203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Q. Li, J. Lin, Y. Lin, and E. Hoffman. 2021. Innovative trial designs and analyses for vaccine clinical development. Contemporary Clinical Trials 100:106225. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2020.106225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, R., L. Wu, R. Liu, and J. Lin. 2022. Flexible seamless 2-in-1 design with sample size adaptation. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1–19. doi:10.1080/10543406.2024.2330211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, C. R., and S. J. Pocock. 2011. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: A practical guide with examples. Statistics in Medicine 30 (28):3267–3284. doi:10.1002/sim.4102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, D. B. 1956. Tables for computing bivariate normal probabilities. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27 (4):1075–1090. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728074.
   Google Scholar
• Reck, M., D. Rodríguez-Abreu, A. G. Robinson, R. Hui, T. Csőszi, A. Fülöp, M. Gottfried, N. Peled, A. Tafreshi, and S. Cuffe. 2016. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1–positive non–small-cell lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 375 (19):1823–1833. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slepian, D. 1962. The one‐sided barrier problem for Gaussian noise. Bell System Technical Journal 41 (2):463–501. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1962.tb02419.x.
   Google Scholar
• Teng, Z., N. Gupta, Z. Hua, G. Liu, V. Samnotra, K. Venkatakrishnan, and R. Labotka. 2018. Model‐based meta‐analysis for multiple myeloma: A quantitative drug‐independent framework for efficient decisions in oncology drug development. Clinical and Translational Science 11 (2):218–225. doi:10.1111/cts.12524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassmer, G., W. Brannath, G. Wassmer, and W. Brannath. 2016. Adaptive designs with survival data. Group Sequential and Confirmatory Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials, 221–228. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, L., Q. Li, and J. Lin. 2023. Use of surrogate endpoints in clinical development. In Case Studies in Innovative Clinical Trials, 191–204. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, L., Q. Li, M. Liu, and J. Lin. 2022. Incorporating surrogate information for adaptive subgroup enrichment design with sample size re-estimation. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 14 (4):493–504. doi:10.1080/19466315.2022.2046150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong, C., Q. Li, L. Wu, and J. Lin. 2022. Using surrogate information to improve confirmatory platform trial with sample size Re-estimation. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 32 (4):547–566. doi:10.1080/10543406.2022.2080693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar