A comparison of phase II study strategies.
The traditional oncology drug development paradigm of single arm phase II studies followed by a randomized phase III study has limitations for modern oncology drug development. Interpretation of single arm phase II study results is difficult when a new drug is used in combination with other agents or when progression-free survival is used as the endpoint rather than tumor shrinkage. Randomized phase II studies are more informative for these objectives but increase both the number of patients and time required to determine the value of a new experimental agent. In this article, we compare different phase II study strategies to determine the most efficient drug development path in terms of number of patients and length of time to conclusion of drug efficacy on overall survival.
Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. sallyh@ctep.nci.nih.gov
Sally
S
Hunsberger
Yingdong
Y
Zhao
Richard
R
Simon
D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017322:Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D015195:Drug Design; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000401:mortality; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D016019:Survival Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome