Over the past decade, there have been profound shifts in clinical trial design. Phase II randomized studies, phase II/III and other adaptive designs, early surrogate end points, and prospective biomarker-based patient selection have all increased in popularity. We discuss these shifts in clinical trial designs that have increased efficiency in identifying which patients will benefit from specific treatments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Sherman, R. E., Li, J., Shapley, S., Robb, M. & Woodcock, J. Expediting drug development—the FDA's new “breakthrough therapy” designation. N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1877–1880 (2013).
Rubinstein, L. V. et al. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7199–7206 (2005).
Seymour, L. et al. The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 1764–1769 (2010).
Korn, E. L., Freidlin, B., Abrams, J. S. & Halabi, S. Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 667–671 (2012).
Sargent, D. J., Conley, B. A., Allegra, C. & Collette, L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 2020–2027 (2005).
Kim, E. S. et al. The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 1, 44–53 (2011).
Barker, A. D. et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 97–100 (2009).
Abrams, J. et al. National Cancer Institute's precision medicine initiatives for the new National Clinical Trials Network. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2014, 71–76 (2014).
Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G. & Buyse, M. (eds) The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints (Springer, 2005).
Ellis, L. M. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1277–1280 (2014).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sargent, D., Korn, E. Shifting paradigms in cancer clinical trial design. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11, 625–626 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.167
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.167
- Springer Nature Limited