Group Sequential Design: Uses and Abuses

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Group Sequential Design: Uses and Abuses"

Angelina Bishop
5 years ago
Views:

1 Group Sequential Design: Uses and Abuses Susan Halabi Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University October 23, 2015

2 What Does Interim Data Say? 2

3 Group Sequential Design (GSD) Monitoring review toxicity data and analyze response data during the trial Early Termination If intervention harmful If intervention clearly more beneficial than other treatments Unimpressive results associated with intervention 3

4 GSD as an Aid to Monitoring GSD are an aid to monitoring, but should not be the sole tool used to decide whether to continue or stop the trial. GSD help Data Safety Monitoring Boards decide on early stopping for efficacy or futility. 4 4

5 Interim Analysis: PREVAIL Hazard Ratio: (95% CI: 0.60,0.84) P< Survival (%) Enzalutamide Placebo Patients still alive at data cut off Enzalutamide: 72%; Placebo: 63% Duration of Overall Survival (Months) Patients at Risk Enzalutamide Estimated Placebomedian 845OS, months 835 (95% 781CI): Enzalutamide: (30.1, NYR); 484 Placebo: (28.0, NYR) NYR = Not 0Yet Reached 5

6 Design of COU-302 Patients Progressive chemonaïve mcrpc patients (Planned N = 1088) Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic R A N D O M I Z E D AA 1000 mg daily Prednisone 5 mg BID Placebo daily Prednisone 5 mg BID Efficacy end points Primary: rpfs by central review OS Secondary: Time to opiate use (cancerrelated pain) 1:1 Time to initiation of chemotherapy Time to ECOG-PS deterioration TTPP metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer; OS, overall survival; rpfs, radiographic progression-free survival. 66

7 COU-AA-302 Design Overall Assumption rpfs OS Type I error rate Power 91% 85% HR Expected events 0.67 (median 6 mo vs 4 mo) 378 (single analysis) 0.80 (median 27.5 mos vs 22 mo) 773 (three interim, one final analysis) Planned OS Analysis Interim 1* (~15% of Total Events) Interim 2 (43% of Total Events) Interim 3 (55% of Total Events) Final Projected Observed OS Events Stopping Probability under H0 <

8 Co-Primary Endpoint: rpfs 100 HR (95% CI): 0.43 ( ) P value: < Progression-Free Survival or Survival (%) AA Placebo Time to Progression or Death (Months) AA Placebo Data cutoff 12/20/2010 8

9 Primary End Point: OS* Survival (%) AA+P Placebo+P Time to Death (Months) AA + P (median): NR PL + P (median): 27.2 HR (95% CI): 0.75 ( ) P value: AA Placebo

10 O Brien-Fleming Boundary Drug is effective * Drug is effective Drug is ineffective * Drug is ineffective 10 10

11 All Secondary End Points Favor Abiraterone AA + P (n = 546) Placebo + P (n = 542) Median (months) Median (months) HR (95% CI) P Value* Time to opiate use (cancer related pain) Time to chemotherapy initiation Time to ECOG PS deterioration NR (0.57, 0.83) (0.49, 0.69) < (0.71, 0.94) Time to PSA Progression (0.42, 0.57) < PSA Decline 50% 62% 24% NA < *Adjusted type I error rate for multiplicity 11

12 Subsequent Therapy AA + P (n = 546) Placebo + P (n = 542) No. with selected subsequent therapy for mpc 242 (44.3%) 327 (60.3%) Docetaxel 207 (37.9%) 287 (53.0%) Cabazitaxel 45 (8.2%) 52 (9.6%) Ketoconazole 39 (7.1%) 63 (11.6%) Sipuleucel-T 27 (4.9%) 24 (4.4%) Abiraterone Acetate 26 (4.8%) 54 (10.0%) 12 12

13 FDA Assessment Kluetz, CCR

14 Price You Pay: Biased Estimate of Clinical Benefit Analysis Observed Hazard Ratio (95%CI) Interim Analysis Log-Rank p-value 0.75 ( ) Final Analysis Log Rank p-value 0.81 ( )

15 Final Results: COU302 Ryan et al. Lancet Oncology,

16 IMPACT Trial: Press Release Dendreon Corporation (Nasdaq: DNDN) announced today that it has completed the planned interim analysis of the Phase 3, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled IMPACT (IMmunotherapy for Prostate AdenoCarcinoma Treatment, also known as D9902B) clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the investigational active cellular immunotherapy PROVENGE (sipuleucel T) in men with metastatic androgen independent prostate cancer. While Dendreon remains blinded to the data, the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) reported to Dendreon a 20 percent reduction in the risk of death in the PROVENGE arm relative to placebo (Hazard Ratio= 0.80; 95% Confidence Interval [ ]). The IDMC observed no safety concerns and recommended that the study continue to its final analysis. 16

17 IMPACT Trial: Final Analysis Kantoff et al. NEJM

18 Futility: MainSail Trial Petrylak et al. Lancet Oncology

19 Enthuse Trial 33 Fizazi et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology

20 Conclusion There are a variety of approaches for interim monitoring of clinical trial data. The appropriate monitoring plan depends on the goals of the trial. GSD offer a mechanism to consider terminating a trial early (either for inferiority or superiority) while maintaining the overall type I error rate for a twosided test and the overall type I and type II error rates for a one-sided test. 20

21 Summary The decision to stop a trial is complex and requires both statistical and clinical judgment GSD should not be used as a sole tool in the decision to stop or continue a trial Totality of evidence for primary, secondary and safety issues also external evidence. 21

Until 2004, CRPC was consistently a rapidly lethal disease.

Until 2004, CRPC was consistently a rapidly lethal disease. the entry in systemic disease is declared on a an isolated PSA recurrence after local treatment so!!! The management of CRPC and MCRPC is different