Skip to main content

A review of phase 2–3 clinical trial designs

Abstract

This article reviews phase 2–3 clinical trial designs, including their genesis and the potential role of such designs in treatment evaluation. The paper begins with a discussion of the many scientific flaws in the conventional phase 2 → phase 3 treatment evaluation process that motivate phase 2–3 designs. This is followed by descriptions of some particular phase 2–3 designs that have been proposed, including two-stage designs to evaluate one experimental treatment, a design that accommodates both frontline and salvage therapy in oncology, two-stage select-and-test designs that evaluate several experimental treatments, dose-ranging designs, and a seamless phase 2–3 design based on both early response-toxicity outcomes and later event times. A general conclusion is that, in many circumstances, a properly designed phase 2–3 trial utilizes resources much more efficiently and provides much more reliable inferences than conventional methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Bechhofer RE, Santner TJ and Goldsman DM (1995). Design and analysis of experiments for statistical selection, screening and multiple comparisons. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry DA, Mueller P, Grieve AP, Smith M, Parke T, Blazek R, Mitchard N, Krams M (2001) Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In: Gatsonis C, Kass RE, Carlin B, Carriquiry A, Gelman A, Verdinelli I, West M (eds) Case studies in Bayesian statistics, V 99–181. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag

  • Braun TM, Thall PF, Nguyen H, de Lima M (2007) Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clin Trials, (in press)

  • Bryant J and Day R (1995). Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 51: 1372–1383

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chang MN, Therneau TM, Wieand HS and Cha SS (1987). Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 43: 865–874

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg SS and Eisenberger MA (1985). An efficient design for phase III studies of combination chemotherapies. (with discussion). Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1147–1154

    Google Scholar 

  • Estey EH and Thall PF (2003). New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood 102: 442–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming TR (1982). One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38: 143–151

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehan EA (1961). The determination of the number of patients required in a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Diseases 13: 346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue LYT, Thall PF and Berry DA (2002). Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III. Biometrics 58: 823–831

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jennison C and Turnbull BW (2000). Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lavori PW and Dawson R (2004). Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clin Trials 1: 9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Q and Pledger GW (2005). Phase 2 and 3 combination designs to accelerate drug development. J Am Stat Assoc 100: 493–502

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SA (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 65: 331–366

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SA (2005). An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med 24: 1455–1481

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B, Hunsberger S, Ivy P and Smith M (2005). Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol 23: 7199–7206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaid DJ, Ingle JN, Wieand S and Ahmann DL (1988). A design for phase II testing of anticancer agents within a phase III clinical trial. Controlled Clin Trials 9: 107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaid DJ, Wieand HS and Therneau TM (1990). Optimal two-stage screening designs for survival comparisons. Biometrika 77: 507–513

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Simon R (1989). Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 10: 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon R, Wittes RE and Ellenberg SS (1985). Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1375–1381

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon R, Thall PF, Ellenberg SS (1994) New designs for the selection of treatments to be tested in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 13:417–429, (discussion pp 447–451)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR and Myles JP (2004). Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF and Cook JD (2004). Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60: 684–693

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF and Simon R (1990). Incorporating historical control data in planning phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 9: 215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF and Simon R (1994). Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics 50: 337–349

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Simon R, Ellenberg SS and Shrager R (1988a). Optimal two-stage designs for clinical trials with binary response. Stat Med 71: 571–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Simon R and Ellenberg SS (1988b). Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials. Biometrika 75: 303–310

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Simon R and Ellenberg SS (1989). A two-stage design for choosing among several experimental treatments and a control in clinical trials. Biometrics 45: 537–547

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Simon R and Estey EH (1995). Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Stat Med 14: 357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Millikan R and Sung H-G (2000). Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials. Stat Med 19: 1011–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Sung H-G and Estey EH (2002). Selecting therapeutic strategies based on efficacy and death in multi-course clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 97: 29–39

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Wooten LH, Logothetis CJ, Millikan R, Tannir NM Bayesian and frequentist two-stage treatment strategies based on sequential failure times subject to interval censoring. Stat Med. (in press)

  • Therneau TM, Wieand HS and Chang M (1990). Optimal designs for a grouped sequential binomial test. Biometrics 46: 771–781

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Torri V, Simon R, Russek-Cohen E, Midthune D and Friedman M (1992). Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J Nat Cancer Institute 84(6): 407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead J (1986). Sample sizes for phase II and phase III clinical trials: an integrated approach. Stat Med 5: 459–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter F. Thall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thall, P.F. A review of phase 2–3 clinical trial designs. Lifetime Data Anal 14, 37–53 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-007-9049-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-007-9049-x

Keywords

  • Adaptive design
  • Clinical trial
  • Design
  • Phase II clinical trial
  • Phase III clinical trial
  • Selection