zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Geometry Search for the term Geometry in any field. Queries are case-independent.
Funct* Wildcard queries are specified by * (e.g. functions, functorial, etc.). Otherwise the search is exact.
"Topological group" Phrases (multi-words) should be set in "straight quotation marks".
au: Bourbaki & ti: Algebra Search for author and title. The and-operator & is default and can be omitted.
Chebyshev | Tschebyscheff The or-operator | allows to search for Chebyshev or Tschebyscheff.
"Quasi* map*" py: 1989 The resulting documents have publication year 1989.
so: Eur* J* Mat* Soc* cc: 14 Search for publications in a particular source with a Mathematics Subject Classification code (cc) in 14.
"Partial diff* eq*" ! elliptic The not-operator ! eliminates all results containing the word elliptic.
dt: b & au: Hilbert The document type is set to books; alternatively: j for journal articles, a for book articles.
py: 2000-2015 cc: (94A | 11T) Number ranges are accepted. Terms can be grouped within (parentheses).
la: chinese Find documents in a given language. ISO 639-1 language codes can also be used.

a & b logic and
a | b logic or
!ab logic not
abc* right wildcard
"ab c" phrase
(ab c) parentheses
any anywhere an internal document identifier
au author, editor ai internal author identifier
ti title la language
so source ab review, abstract
py publication year rv reviewer
cc MSC code ut uncontrolled term
dt document type (j: journal article; b: book; a: book article)
A review of phase 2-3 clinical trial designs. (English) Zbl 1169.62392
Summary: 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 2phase3 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, designs that accommodate 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.
62P10Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences
92C50Medical applications of mathematical biology
[1]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
[2]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
[3]Braun TM, Thall PF, Nguyen H, de Lima M (2007) Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clin Trials, (in press)
[4]Bryant J and Day R (1995). Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 51: 1372–1383 · Zbl 0871.62090 · doi:10.2307/2533268
[5]Chang MN, Therneau TM, Wieand HS and Cha SS (1987). Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 43: 865–874 · Zbl 0715.62244 · doi:10.2307/2531540
[6]Ellenberg SS and Eisenberger MA (1985). An efficient design for phase III studies of combination chemotherapies. (with discussion). Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1147–1154
[7]Estey EH and Thall PF (2003). New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood 102: 442–448 · doi:10.1182/blood-2002-09-2937
[8]Fleming TR (1982). One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38: 143–151 · Zbl 0479.62083 · doi:10.2307/2530297
[9]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 · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(61)90060-1
[10]Inoue LYT, Thall PF and Berry DA (2002). Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III. Biometrics 58: 823–831 · Zbl 1210.62168 · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00823.x
[11]Jennison C and Turnbull BW (2000). Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY
[12]Lavori PW and Dawson R (2004). Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clin Trials 1: 9–20 · doi:10.1191/1740774S04cn002oa
[13]Liu Q and Pledger GW (2005). Phase 2 and 3 combination designs to accelerate drug development. J Am Stat Assoc 100: 493–502 · Zbl 1117.62390 · doi:10.1198/016214504000001790
[14]Murphy SA (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 65: 331–366 · Zbl 1065.62006 · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00389
[15]Murphy SA (2005). An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med 24: 1455–1481 · doi:10.1002/sim.2022
[16]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 · doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.01.149
[17]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 · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(88)90032-3
[18]Schaid DJ, Wieand HS and Therneau TM (1990). Optimal two-stage screening designs for survival comparisons. Biometrika 77: 507–513 · doi:10.1093/biomet/77.3.507
[19]Simon R (1989). Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 10: 1–10 · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90015-9
[20]Simon R, Wittes RE and Ellenberg SS (1985). Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1375–1381
[21]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)
[22]Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR and Myles JP (2004). Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY
[23]Thall PF and Cook JD (2004). Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60: 684–693 · Zbl 05163363 · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00218.x
[24]Thall PF and Simon R (1990). Incorporating historical control data in planning phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 9: 215–228 · doi:10.1002/sim.4780090304
[25]Thall PF and Simon R (1994). Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics 50: 337–349 · Zbl 0821.62090 · doi:10.2307/2533377
[26]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 · doi:10.1002/sim.4780070504
[27]Thall PF, Simon R and Ellenberg SS (1988b). Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials. Biometrika 75: 303–310 · Zbl 0639.62096 · doi:10.1093/biomet/75.2.303
[28]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 · Zbl 0715.62239 · doi:10.2307/2531495
[29]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 · doi:10.1002/sim.4780140404
[30]Thall PF, Millikan R and Sung H-G (2000). Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials. Stat Med 19: 1011–1028 · doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000430)19:8<1011::AID-SIM414>3.0.CO;2-M
[31]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 · Zbl 1073.62590 · doi:10.1198/016214502753479202
[32]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)
[33]Therneau TM, Wieand HS and Chang M (1990). Optimal designs for a grouped sequential binomial test. Biometrics 46: 771–781 · Zbl 0709.62065 · doi:10.2307/2532095
[34]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 · doi:10.1093/jnci/84.6.407
[35]Whitehead J (1986). Sample sizes for phase II and phase III clinical trials: an integrated approach. Stat Med 5: 459–464 · doi:10.1002/sim.4780050510