A three-outcome design for randomized comparative phase II clinical trials.
Randomized designs have been increasingly called for use in phase II oncology clinical trials to protect against potential patient selection bias. However, formal statistical comparison is rarely conducted due to the sample size restriction, despite its appeal. In this paper, we offer an approach to sample size reduction by extending the three-outcome design of Sargent et al. (Control Clin. Trials 2001; 22:117-125) for single-arm trials to randomized comparative trials. In addition to the usual two outcomes of a hypothesis testing (rejecting the null hypothesis or rejecting the alternative hypothesis), the three-outcome comparative design allows a third outcome of rejecting neither hypotheses when the testing result is in some 'grey area' and leaves the decision to the clinical judgment based on the overall evaluation of trial outcomes and other relevant factors. By allowing a reasonable region of uncertainty, the three-outcome design enables formal statistical comparison with considerably smaller sample size, compared to the standard two-outcome comparative design. Statistical formulation of the three-outcome comparative design is discussed for both the single-stage and two-stage trials. Sample sizes are tabulated for some common clinical scenarios.
Hong
Shengyan
S
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA. hongsh@lilly.com
Wang
Yanping
Y
D017322:Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D008495:Medical Oncology; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D018401:Sample Size; D014481:United States