A landscape of methodology and implementation of adaptive designs in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of adaptive designs in cancer trials has considerably increased worldwide in recent years, along with the release of various guidelines for their application. This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarize the key methodological and executive features of adaptive designs in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: A comprehensive search from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to screen eligible clinical trials that employed adaptive designs and were conducted in cancer patients. The methodological and executive characteristics of adaptive designs were the main measurements extracted. Descriptive analyses, primarily consisting of frequency and percentage, were employed to analyzed and reported the data. RESULTS: A total of 180 cancer clinical trials with adaptive designs were identified. The first three most common type of adaptive design was the group sequential design (n=114, 63.3 %), adaptive dose-finding design (n=22, 12.2 %), and adaptive platform design (n=16, 8.9 %). The results showed that 4.4 % (n=8) of trials conducted post hoc modifications, and around 29.4 % (n=53) did not provide the methods for controlling type I errors. Among phase II or above trials, 79.9 % (112/140) applied the surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome in these trials. Importantly, 27.2 % (49/180) of trials did not report clear information on the independent data monitoring committee (iDMC), and 13.3 % (n=24) without clear information on interim analyses. Interim analyses suggested 34.4 % (62/180) of trials being stopped for futility, 10.6 % (n=19) for efficacy, and 2.2 % (n=4) for safety concerns in the early stage. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes adaptive designs in cancer trials face significant challenges in their design or strict implementation according to protocol, which might significantly compromise the validity and integrity of trials. It is thus important for researchers, sponsors, and policymakers to actively oversee and guide their application.

Duke Scholars

Author Shein-Chung Chow Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Division of Biostatistics