Optimal predictive probability designs for randomized biomarker-guided oncology trials

Efforts to develop biomarker-targeted anti-cancer therapies have progressed rapidly in recent years. With efforts to expedite regulatory reviews of promising therapies, several targeted cancer therapies have been granted accelerated approval on the basis of evidence acquired in single-arm phase II clinical trials. And yet, in the absence of randomization, patient prognosis for progression-free survival and overall survival may not have been studied under standard of care chemotherapies for emerging biomarker subpopulations prior to the submission of an accelerated approval application. Historical control rates used to design and evaluate emerging targeted therapies often arise as population averages, lacking specificity to the targeted genetic or immunophenotypic profile. Thus, historical trial results are inherently limited for inferring the potential "comparative efficacy" of novel targeted therapies. Consequently, randomization may be unavoidable in this setting. Innovations in design methodology are needed, however, to enable efficient implementation of randomized trials for agents that target biomarker subpopulations.

This article proposes three randomized designs for early phase biomarker-guided oncology clinical trials. Each design utilizes the optimal efficiency predictive probability method to monitor multiple biomarker subpopulations for futility. Only designs with type I error between 0.05 and 0.1 and power of at least 0.8 were considered when selecting an optimal efficiency design from among the candidate designs formed by different combinations of posterior and predictive threshold. A simulation study motivated by the results reported in a recent clinical trial studying atezolizumab treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is used to evaluate the operating characteristics of the various designs.

Out of a maximum of 300 total patients, we find that the enrichment design has an average total sample size under the null of 101.0 and a total average sample size under the alternative of 218.0, as compared to 144.8 and 213.8 under the null and alternative, respectively, for the stratified control arm design. The pooled control arm design enrolled a total of 113.2 patients under the null and 159.6 under the alternative, out of a maximum of 200. These average sample sizes that are 23-48% smaller under the alternative and 47-64% smaller under the null, as compared to the realized sample size of 310 patients in the phase II study of atezolizumab.

Our findings suggest that potentially smaller phase II trials to those used in practice can be designed using randomization and futility stopping to efficiently obtain more information about both the treatment and control groups prior to phase III study.