Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

**Jianchang Lin ^{*} and Serap Sankoh**

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA, USA

- Corresponding Author:
- Jianchang Lin

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited

Cambridge, MA, USA

**Tel:**+1-617-679-7000

**E-mail:**[email protected]

**Received Date:** April 04, 2016; **Accepted Date:** April 14, 2016; **Published Date:** April 25, 2016

**Citation: **Lin J, Sankoh S (2016) Response-Adaptive Randomization Design for Clinical Trials with Survival Outcomes. J Biom Biostat 7:302. doi:10.4172/2155-6180.1000302

**Copyright:** © 2016 Lin J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Visit for more related articles at** Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics

Since the release of FDA draft guidance on adaptive design (2010), adaptive randomization (e.g. responseadaptive (RA) randomization) has become popular in clinical research community because of its flexibility and efficiency improvement, which also have the patient centric advantage of assigning fewer patients to inferior treatment arms. The RA design based on binary outcome is commonly used in clinical trial where “success” is defined as the desired (or undesired) event occurring within (or beyond) a clinical relevant time. As patients entering into trial sequentially, only part of patients have sufficient follow-up during interim analysis. This results in a loss of information as it is unclear how patients without sufficient follow-up should be handled. Alternatively, adaptive design for survival trial was proposed for this type of trial. However, most of current practice assumes the event times following a pre-specified parametric distribution. We adopt a nonparametric model of survival outcome which is robust to model of event time distribution, and then apply it to response-adaptive design. The operating characteristics of the proposed design along with parametric design are compared by simulation studies, including their robustness properties with respect to model misspecifications.

Adaptive design; Clinical trials; Bayesian adaptive design; Survival analysis.

Response-adaptive (RA) [1-4] randomization scheme has become popular in clinical research because of its flexibility and **efficiency**. Based on the accruing history of **patients**’ responses to treatment, the RA randomization scheme adjusts the future allocation probabilities, thereby allowing more patients to be assigned to the superior treatment as the trial progresses. As a result, RA randomization can offer significant ethical and cost advantages over equal randomization.

The RA design based on binary outcome is commonly used in clinical trial where “**success**” is defined as the desired (or undesired) event occurring within (or beyond) a clinical relevant time. As patients entering into trial sequentially, only part of patients have sufficient follow-up during interim analysis. This results in a loss of information as it is unclear how patients without sufficient follow-up should be handled. Alternatively, adaptive design for survival trial was proposed for this type of trial.

However, most of current practice assumes the event times following a pre-specified parametric distribution. We adopt a nonparametric model of survival outcome which is robust to model of event time distribution, and then apply it to response-adaptive design. The operating characteristics of the proposed design along with parametric design are compared by **simulation studies**, including their robustness properties with respect to model misspecifications.

**A nonparametric survival model**

Patients are enrolled in sequential groups of size {N_{j} }, j =1, . . . , J , where N_{j} is the sample size of the sequential group j . Typically, before conducting the trial, researchers have little prior information regarding the superiority of the treatment arms. Therefore, initially, for the first j’ groups, e.g. j’=1, patients are allocated to K treatment arms with an equal probability 1/K. As patients accurate, the number of current patients increased. Let Ti be the event time for patient i and τ be the clinical relevant time where *θ*=Pr(T>τ) is the probability of interest. For example, a trial is conducted to assess the **progression**-free survival probability at 9 months. During the trial, the number of current patients increased as patients accurate. Let N(t) denote the current number of patients who have been accrued and treated at a given calendar time t during the trial. Without censoring, θ can be modeled by binomial model where the likelihood function evaluated at time t is

However, censoring is not avoidable in clinical practice. As patients enter into the trial sequentially, the follow-up time for certain patients may less than τ when we evaluate θ at any calendar time t. Other reason for censoring, including, but not limited to, patient drop out, failure to measure the outcome of interest, and so on. If we ignore the censoring, substantial information will be lost. Cheung and Chappell [5] introduced a simple model for dose-finding trial. Later, Cheung and Thall [6] adopted this model to continuous monitoring for phase II clinical trials. With censoring, the likelihood function (1) can be rewritten as

Where *x _{i}*=min (

Furthermore, the parameter θ will be plug into the likelihood function through probability transformation,

Where is a weight function

Finally, we can obtain a working likelihood with unbiased estimation of w(t).

Theorem: if converges almost surely to *w(x _{i})* for all I as N(t)→∞, then is strongly consistent for true survival probability

Cheung and Chappell [1] assumed the nuisance parameter as a linear function Ji and Bekele [7] shows that these estimated weights are based on strong assumption of linearity and independence; it may leads to biased results when the assumptions are violated. We propose to estimate with Kaplan–Meier (KM) estimation of where

It’s easy to show that is a unbiased estimation of *(x _{i})* .

**Adaptive randomization**

Under model (4), the survival probability evaluated at time τ, is used as a conventional measure of treatment efficacy. However, such a survival probability at τ ignores the entire path of survival curve. While, particular interest in a clinical trial is the estimation of the difference between survivals probability for the treatment groups at several points in time. As shown in **Figure 1**, the survival curve under treatment B declines faster than that under treatment A, although both treatments have the same survival probability at τ. In the renal cancer trial, this indicates that patients under treatment B would experience disease progression much faster than those under treatment A. Because delayed disease progression typically leads to a better quality of life, treatment A would be preferred in this situation [4]. Another example is showed in **Figure 2**. The survival curves are almost identical between two treatments before time 20. If we compare the survival probability between two treatments at the time before 20, the treatment effect is inconclusive. To provide a comprehensive measure of efficacy by accounting for the shape of the survival curve, we propose to evaluate survival probability at several points in time. Let θkj be the survival probability at time τj for treatment k where j=1, …, J. The treatment allocation probability for treatment k is defined as,

Where wj is the pre specified weight. Currently, we use equal weight with wj =1/J (**Figures 1** and **2**)

During the trial, we continuously monitor posterior probability of π* _{k}*. When the efficacy of π

**Parameter estimation**

We simulate a single arm trial where the event times follow weibull **distribution** with α=2 and λ=50. And, patients enter into the trial sequentially with accrual rate of one per week. At week 50, we stop enrol the patients and continue to follow the trial for additional 30 weeks. The parameter of interesting is θ=Pr(T>40).

The purpose of this simulation study is to compare the performance of estimation with different methods and to show whether the estimation at different trial monitoring time is consistent. Four estimation method will be evaluated, including proposed method, true parametric method (weibull distribution), misspecified parametric method (exponential distribution), and original method Trial monitoring starts at time 40 and continue until the end of study. **Figure 3** shows the estimated θ at different monitoring time. The results show that the true parametric method and proposed method can provide unbiased estimation over monitoring time while the original method and misspecified parametric method give large bias. It is worth to note that the original method gives small bias at the end of trial because the number of censored observed decreased as follow-up time increase. In **Figure 4**, we present the coverage probability along the monitoring times. The figure shows that the proposed method and true parametric method provide constant coverage probability over the monitoring time which is close to the nominal value of 95%. While the original method and misspecified parametric method provides low coverage **probability** (**Figures 3** and **4**).

**Adaptive randomization**

We conducted simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed adaptive **randomization** design under various clinical scenarios (1000 simulations per scenario). For the simulations, we set the accrual rate to two patients per week. The maximum number of patients is 120. After the initial 60 weeks of enrollment time, there is an additional follow-up period of 40 weeks. The event times are simulated from weibull distribution with α=1 in scenario I and α=0.5 in scenario II. We assigned the first 30 patients equally to two arms (A or B) and started using the adaptive randomization at the 31st patient. The proposed design will be compared with the following designs: parametric design (exponential distribution) and original design

**Table 1** shows the simulation results where event times simulated from exponential distribution. For each design, we list the average number of patients (with percentage of total patients in the trial) assigned to each treatment arm, and the chance of a treatment being selected as promising. Comparing the proposed design and parametric designs, the proposed design provides comparable operational characteristic where both design assign more patients to more promising treatment (69% for proposed design and 70.3% for parametric design) and both design provide the sample level of power (0.978 for proposed design and 0.979 for parametric design). While the original design provides lower power than then proposed design and parametric design (**Tables 1** and **2**).

Arm | λ | Proposed Design | Exponential | Original | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

# of patients | Pr(select) | # of patients | Pr(select) | # of patients | Pr(select) | ||

A | 40 | 26.3 (31%) | 0.005 | 24.72 (29.6%) | 0.003 | 36.47 (36.1%) | 0.003 |

B | 100 | 58.56 (69%) | 0.978 | 61.36 (70.3%) | 0.979 | 64.49 (63.9%) | 0.749 |

84.86 | 90.08 | 100.96 |

**Table 1:** Simulation result for scenario I.

Arm | λ | Proposed Design | Exponential | Original | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

# of patients | Pr(select) | # of patients | Pr(select) | # of patients | Pr(select) | ||

A | 50 | 27.76 (28.5%) | 0.005 | 32.48 (32.2%) | 0.0003 | 35.6 (33.8%) | 0.001 |

B | 200 | 69.63 (71.5%) | 0.836 | 68.34 (67.8%) | 0.647 | 69.8 (66.2%) | 0.51 |

97.39 | 100.82 | 105.4 |

**Table 2:** Shows simulation results for scenario II.

**Table 2** shows simulation results for scenario II. In the presence of event time distribution misspecification, the parametric design provides lower power than proposed design (0.836 vs 0.647). And, the proposed design assigns more patients to more promising treatment. Once again, the original design has lower power than the other two designs.

We have developed a Bayesian response-adaptive randomization design for survival trial. A nonparametric survival model is applied to estimate the survival probability at a clinical relevant time. The proposed design provides comparable operational characteristics as true parametric design. Whereas, the proposed design perform better than parametric design when the event time distribution is misspecified. The proposed design can be extended to Response- Adaptive Covariate-Adjusted Randomization (RACA) design when we need to control important prognostics among treatment arms [8,9]. The benefits of adaptive randomization for survival trial depend on the distributions of event times and patient accrual rate as well as on the particular adaptive design under consideration [10]. If there are short-term response quickly available and can predicting the long-term survival, we can used those short-term response to “speed up” adaptive randomization for survival trial [11].

- Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Muller P (2010) Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. CRC press.
- Brannath W1, Burger HU, Glimm E, Stallard N, Vandemeulebroecke M, et al. (2010) Comments on the draft guidance on "adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics" of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See comment in PubMed Commons below J Biopharm Stat 20: 1125-1131.
- Kairalla JA1, Coffey CS, Thomann MA, Muller KE (2012) Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities. See comment in PubMed Commons below Trials 13: 145.
- Hu F, Rosenberger WF (2006) Introduction-The Theory of Response-Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials, John Wiley & Sons, NJ, USA.
- Cheung YK, Chappell R (2000) Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56: 1177-1182.
- Cheung YK, Thall PF (2002) Monitoring the rates of composite events with censored data in phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 58: 89-97.
- Ji Y, Bekele BN (2009) Adaptive randomization for multiarm comparative clinical trials based on joint efficacy/toxicity outcomes. Biometrics 65: 876-884.
- Lin J, Lin L, Sankoh S (2016) A Bayesian Response-Adaptive Covariate-Adjusted Randomization Design for Clinical Trials. J BiomBiostat7: 1-6.
- Lin J, Lin L, Sankoh S (2016) A General Overview of Adaptive Randomization Design for Clinical Trials. J BiomBiostat7: 1-6.
- Case LD, Morgan TM (2003) Design of Phase II cancer trials evaluating survival probabilities. BMC Med Res Methodol 3: 6.
- Huang X, Ning J, Li Y, Estey E, Issa JP, et al. (2009) Using short-term response information to facilitate adaptive randomization for survival clinical trials. Stat Med 28: 1680-1689.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

- Adomian Decomposition Method
- Algebra
- Algebraic Geometry
- Algorithm
- Analytical Geometry
- Applied Mathematics
- Artificial Intelligence Studies
- Axioms
- Balance Law
- Behaviometrics
- Big Data Analytics
- Big data
- Binary and Non-normal Continuous Data
- Binomial Regression
- Bioinformatics Modeling
- Biometrics
- Biostatistics methods
- Biostatistics: Current Trends
- Clinical Trail
- Cloud Computation
- Combinatorics
- Complex Analysis
- Computational Model
- Computational Sciences
- Computer Science
- Computer-aided design (CAD)
- Convection Diffusion Equations
- Cross-Covariance and Cross-Correlation
- Data Mining Current Research
- Deformations Theory
- Differential Equations
- Differential Transform Method
- Findings on Machine Learning
- Fourier Analysis
- Fuzzy Boundary Value
- Fuzzy Environments
- Fuzzy Quasi-Metric Space
- Genetic Linkage
- Geometry
- Hamilton Mechanics
- Harmonic Analysis
- Homological Algebra
- Homotopical Algebra
- Hypothesis Testing
- Integrated Analysis
- Integration
- Large-scale Survey Data
- Latin Squares
- Lie Algebra
- Lie Superalgebra
- Lie Theory
- Lie Triple Systems
- Loop Algebra
- Mathematical Modeling
- Matrix
- Microarray Studies
- Mixed Initial-boundary Value
- Molecular Modelling
- Multivariate-Normal Model
- Neural Network
- Noether's theorem
- Non rigid Image Registration
- Nonlinear Differential Equations
- Number Theory
- Numerical Solutions
- Operad Theory
- Physical Mathematics
- Quantum Group
- Quantum Mechanics
- Quantum electrodynamics
- Quasi-Group
- Quasilinear Hyperbolic Systems
- Regressions
- Relativity
- Representation theory
- Riemannian Geometry
- Robotics Research
- Robust Method
- Semi Analytical-Solution
- Sensitivity Analysis
- Smooth Complexities
- Soft Computing
- Soft biometrics
- Spatial Gaussian Markov Random Fields
- Statistical Methods
- Studies on Computational Biology
- Super Algebras
- Symmetric Spaces
- Systems Biology
- Theoretical Physics
- Theory of Mathematical Modeling
- Three Dimensional Steady State
- Topologies
- Topology
- mirror symmetry
- vector bundle

- Total views:
**8181** - [From(publication date):

June-2016 - Dec 18, 2017] - Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views :
**8069** - PDF downloads :
**112**

Peer Reviewed Journals

International Conferences
2017-18