Table_1_Value of Adaptive Trials and Surrogate Endpoints for Clinical Decision-Making in Rare Cancers.docx (51.43 kB)
Download file

Table_1_Value of Adaptive Trials and Surrogate Endpoints for Clinical Decision-Making in Rare Cancers.docx

Download (51.43 kB)
dataset
posted on 08.03.2021, 04:59 by Andriy Krendyukov, Sanjay Singhvi, Markus Zabransky

Despite high-level endorsement, the number of adaptive Phase II/III trials in rare cancers needs to be improved, with better understanding of their value for clinical decisions in daily practice. This paper describes approaches to trial design in rare cancers, which has been supplemented by a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for adaptive trial designs in rare cancer. In addition, an online survey of 3,200 oncologists was conducted. Practicing physicians were questioned on the importance of different evidence levels, types of adaptive trial design, and categories of surrogate endpoints for clinical decision making. The results of the online survey revealed that evidence from Phase II/III trials with an adaptive design and relatively small sample size was considered high value in rare cancer by 97% of responders, similar to the randomized controlled trial rating (82%). Surrogate clinical endpoints were considered valuable alternatives to overall survival by 80% of oncologists. Preferred adaptive designs were futility analysis, interim analysis, adaptive sample size, and adaptive randomization. In conclusion, rare cancer oncologists rate evidence from adaptive clinical trials with as high a value and importance for clinical decision making processes as conventional randomized controlled trials. All stakeholders have a vested interest in advances in clinical trial designs to ensure efficient and timely development of innovative medicinal products to allow more patients faster access to the pivotal treatment.

History