This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lee, J. J. Articles by Feng, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, J. J. Articles by Feng, L.

Randomized Phase II Designs in Cancer Clinical Trials: Current Status and Future Directions

From the Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Address reprint requests to J. Jack Lee, PhD, Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 447 Houston, TX 77030-4009; e-mail: jjlee{at}mdanderson.org

PURPOSE: Randomized phase II (RPh2) designs are popular in cancer clinical trials because of the smaller sample size requirements when multiple treatments are being evaluated. We reviewed the use of RPh2 designs and give comments on future directions.

DESIGN: The trial design, statistical properties, conduct, data analysis, results, and reporting were examined in RPh2 trials reported from 1986 to 2002.

RESULTS: A statistical design was reported in only 46% of the 266 cancer trials, and approximately half of those provided inadequate information. Most studies applied randomization to achieve patient comparability, while embedding a one-sample phase II design within each treatment arm. Seventy-five percent of the trials’ accruals were within ± 10% of their targets. The average accrual rate was 3.3 patients per month. Planned interim analyses were reported in 27% of the trials, and 56% of the trials were stopped early; 69%, 13%, 13%, and 4% of the trial discontinuations were because of lack of efficacy, efficacy, toxicity, and slow accrual, respectively. Thirty-nine trials (14%) recommended or started phase III evaluations, with four positive reports in six phase III studies identified.

CONCLUSION: There is a trend of increasing use of RPh2 designs in cancer research. Continued improvement in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting is required to enhance the quality of RPh2 designs. The accrual rate and success rate of the trials remain low, and therefore, futility stopping rules to terminate ineffective treatment arm(s) should be implemented more frequently. More innovative, flexible RPh2 designs are needed to facilitate the development of effective cancer treatments.

Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute CA16672 and CA97007, and Department of Defense DAMD17-02-1-0706.

Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Xian Zhou, Suyu Liu, E. S Kim, R. S Herbst, and J J. Lee Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer -- a step toward personalized medicine Clinical Trials, June 1, 2008; 5(3): 181 - 193. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Llovet, A. M. Di Bisceglie, J. Bruix, B. S. Kramer, R. Lencioni, A. X. Zhu, M. Sherman, M. Schwartz, M. Lotze, J. Talwalkar, et al. Design and Endpoints of Clinical Trials in Hepatocellular Carcinoma J Natl Cancer Inst, May 21, 2008; 100(10): 698 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J J. Lee and D. D Liu A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials Clinical Trials, April 1, 2008; 5(2): 93 - 106. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Morita, H. Baba, A. Tsuburaya, H. Takiuchi, T. Matsui, Y. Maehara, and J. Sakamoto A Randomized Phase II Selection Trial in Patients with Advanced/Recurrent Gastric Cancer: Trial for Advanced Stomach Cancer (TASC) Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., June 21, 2007; (2007) hym046v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Michaelis and M. J. Ratain Phase II Trials Published in 2002: A Cross-Specialty Comparison Showing Significant Design Differences between Oncology Trials and Other Medical Specialties Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2007; 13(8): 2400 - 2405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Tomblyn and J. D. Rizzo Are There Circumstances in Which Phase 2 Study Results Should Be Practice-Changing? Hematology, January 1, 2007; 2007(1): 489 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Taylor, T. M Braun, and Z. Li Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design Clinical Trials, August 1, 2006; 3(4): 335 - 348. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Bottini, D. Generali, M. P. Brizzi, S. B. Fox, A. Bersiga, S. Bonardi, G. Allevi, S. Aguggini, G. Bodini, M. Milani, et al. Randomized Phase II Trial of Letrozole and Letrozole Plus Low-Dose Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide As Primary Systemic Treatment in Elderly Breast Cancer Patients J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 24(22): 3623 - 3628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P. Abratt, W. H.H. Reece, N. H. Enas, and R. Stephens Randomized phase II studies and their ethics. J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2005; 23(36): 9443 - 9443. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Chang, S. L. Reynolds, N. Butowski, K. R. Lamborn, J. C. Buckner, R. S. Kaplan, and D. D. Bigner GNOSIS: Guidelines for neuro-oncology: Standards for investigational studies--reporting of phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials Neuro-oncol, October 1, 2005; 7(4): 425 - 434. [Abstract] [PDF]