Abstract
This chapter discusses the benefits and limitations of adaptive sample size reestimation for phase 3 confirmatory clinical trials. Comparisons are made with more traditional fixed sample and group sequential designs. It is seen that the real benefit of the adaptive approach arises through the ability to invest sample size resources into the trial in stages. The trial starts with a small up-front sample size commitment. Additional sample size resources are committed to the trial only if promising results are obtained at an interim analysis. This strategy is seen to be more advantageous than the fixed sample or group sequential approaches in certain settings. The discussion is illustrated with the help of three case studies of actual adaptive trials, one in neurology with a continuous endpoint and one in cardiology with a binomial endpoint, and one in oncology with a time to event endpoint. Methodological, regulatory and operational issues are examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bauer P, Koenig F (2006) The reassessment of trial perspectives from interim data – a critical view. Stat Med 25(1):23–36
Bauer P, Kohne K (1994) Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 50(4):1029–1041
Brannath W, Mehta CR, Posch M (2009) Exact confidence bounds following adaptive group sequential tests. Biometrics 65(2):539–546
Chen YH, DeMets DL, Lan KK (2004) Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising. Stat Med 23(7):1023–1038
Cui L, Hung HM, Wang SJ (1999) Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 55(3):853–857
East (2008) Software for design and monitoring of group sequential and adaptive trials; version 5.3. Cytel Inc., MA. www.cytel.com
FDA (2004) Innovation or stagnation: Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html
FDA (2010) Guidance for industry: Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf
Gao P, Ware JH, Mehta C (2008) Sample size re-estimation for adaptive sequential design in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 18(6):1184–1196
Haybittle JL (1971) Repeated assessment of results in clinical trials of cancer treatment. Br J Radiol 44(526):793–797
Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic, New York
Hwang IK, Shih WJ, DeCani JS (1990) Group sequential designs using a family of type i error probability spending functions. Stat Med 9:1439–1445
Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2003) Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect. Stat Med 22(6):971–993
Lan KKG, Demets DL (1983) Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 70(3):659–663
Lehmacher W, Wassmer G (1999) Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics 55(4):1286–1290
Mehta C, Gao P, Bhatt DL, Harrington RA, Skerjanec S, Ware JH (2009) Optimizing trial design: Sequential, adaptive, and enrichment strategies. Circulation 119(4):597–605
Mehta CR, Pocock SJ (2010) Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: A practical guide with examples. Stat Med, Wiley Online Library, November 2010
Mehta CR, Bauer P, Posch M, Brannath W (2007) Repeated confidence intervals for adaptive group sequential trials. Stat Med 26(30):5422–5433
Muller HH, Schafer H (2001) Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: Combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics 57(3):886–891
PhRMA (2007) White paper of the phrma adaptive working group. DIA J
Pocock SJ (2005) When (not) to stop a clinical trial for benefit. JAMA 294:2228–2230
Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA (1995) Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics 51(4):1315–1324
Tsiatis A, Mehta C (2003) On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika 90(2):367–378
Wassmer G (2006) Planning and analyzing adaptive group sequential survival trials. Biom J 48(4):714–729
Woodcock J, Woosley R (2008) The fda critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 59:1–12
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Dr. Howie Golub for helpful discussions on adaptive designs and Dave Harrington for critical comments that have greatly improved the article.
Software support for this article was provided by the East (2008) software package developed by Cytel Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mehta, C.R. (2012). Sample Size Reestimation for Confirmatory Clinical Trials. In: Harrington, D. (eds) Designs for Clinical Trials. Applied Bioinformatics and Biostatistics in Cancer Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0140-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0140-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0139-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0140-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)