Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMossop, Helen
dc.contributor.authorGrayling, Michael J
dc.contributor.authorGallagher, Ferdia
dc.contributor.authorWelsh, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Grant
dc.contributor.authorWason, James MS
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-20T23:30:17Z
dc.date.available2021-10-20T23:30:17Z
dc.date.issued2021-11-08
dc.identifier.issn0007-0920
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/329684
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment. METHODS: Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms. RESULTS: The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UK Cambridge Centre [C9685/A25177]
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
dc.titleAdvantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.
dc.typeArticle
prism.publicationDate2021
prism.publicationNameBr J Cancer
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.77130
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-10-21
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1038/s41416-021-01613-5
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-11-08
dc.contributor.orcidGrayling, Michael J [0000-0002-0680-6668]
dc.contributor.orcidGallagher, Ferdia [0000-0003-4784-5230]
dc.contributor.orcidWelsh, Sarah [0000-0001-5690-2677]
dc.contributor.orcidStewart, Grant [0000-0003-3188-9140]
dc.contributor.orcidWason, James MS [0000-0002-4691-126X]
dc.identifier.eissn1532-1827
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
pubs.funder-project-idMRC (MR/T024097/1)
pubs.funder-project-idCancer Research UK (C96/A25177)
cam.issuedOnline2021-11-08
cam.orpheus.successMon Nov 22 07:30:40 GMT 2021 - Embargo updated
cam.orpheus.counter4
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2022-05-08


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record