Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...

Clinical Trials

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...

Targeted Cancer Therapies

Targeted Cancer Therapies

The targeted cancer therapies, also known as “molecular targeted therapies,” take advantage of the molecular and genetic differences between the cancer cells and the normal cells. It needs a thorough understanding of the cancer cells to develop drugs that can target specific molecular aspects that drive the growth, progression, and spread of cancer cells without affecting the growth and survival of other normal cells in the body.
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...

Targeted Cancer Therapies

Targeted Cancer Therapies

The targeted cancer therapies, also known as “molecular targeted therapies,” take advantage of the molecular and genetic differences between the cancer cells and the normal cells. It needs a thorough understanding of the cancer cells to develop drugs that can target specific molecular aspects that drive the growth, progression, and spread of cancer cells without affecting the growth and survival of other normal cells in the body.
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Development of a health subindex for genetic selection of bulls and cows in Canadian dairy operations.

JDS communications·2026

Same author

Molecular response cutoffs and ctDNA collection timepoints influence on interpretation of associations between early changes in ctDNA and overall survival in patients treated with anti-PD(L)1 and/or chemotherapy.

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer·2025

Same author

Isatuximab for relapsed and/or refractory AL amyloidosis: results of a prospective phase 2 trial (SWOG S1702).

Blood·2025

Same author

Automating Data Entry from Electronic Health Record to Electronic Data Capture Using a Trusted Cloud-Based Application in Multisite Cancer Clinical Trials.

Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management·2025

Same author

ctDNA Clearance as an Early Indicator of Improved Clinical Outcomes in Advanced NSCLC Treated with TKI: Findings from an Aggregate Analysis of Eight Clinical Trials.

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·2025

Same author

Rurality and Area Deprivation and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

JAMA network open·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 3, 2026

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts

Published on: July 25, 2020

Randomized phase III clinical trial designs for targeted agents.

Antje Hoering¹, Mike Leblanc, John J Crowley

¹Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. antjeh@crab.org

Clinical Cancer Research : an Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research

|July 17, 2008

Summary

For targeted cancer therapies, a design randomizing patients with the specific tumor marker offers the best performance. However, randomizing all patients may be preferable if the new treatment benefits marker-negative patients or if the marker is not well-established.

More Related Videos

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 3, 2026

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts

Published on: July 25, 2020

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

Area of Science:

Clinical trial design
Biostatistics
Oncology

Background:

Development of novel cancer therapies with distinct mechanisms of action from conventional chemotherapy.
Need for robust clinical trial designs to evaluate targeted agents, especially in specific patient subgroups.
Importance of tumor markers in identifying patient populations likely to benefit from targeted treatments.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the performance of various phase III clinical trial designs for targeted cancer therapies.
To compare designs for testing overall efficacy versus efficacy in marker-positive subgroups.
To assess the trade-off between study size and treatment effectiveness in marker-positive patients under different scenarios.

Main Methods:

Simulation studies were employed to evaluate sample size and statistical power for different trial designs.
Binary outcomes were analyzed, considering continuous markers and various underlying scenarios.
Marker prevalence and misclassification effects on power and sample size were simulated.

Main Results:

Targeted designs, randomizing patients with the specific marker, demonstrated superior performance when a true predictive marker exists.
Randomizing all patients, irrespective of marker status, often performed comparably or better than marker-based randomization strategies.
The performance of different designs was evaluated against the standard of care in simulated clinical trials.

Conclusions:

Randomizing all patients is recommended if the new treatment may benefit marker-negative patients or if marker status is uncertain.
Designs allowing testing of both overall and targeted subgroup hypotheses are advisable in such cases.
Careful consideration of marker characteristics and potential benefits across patient groups is crucial for optimal trial design.