Glossary
January 16, 2009 – Jennifer M. Gangloff
Breaking News from ASCO
June 09, 2006 – Staff Reports
House Call
June 09, 2006 – Jay Thomas, MD, PhD
Breast Cancer & MDS
January 09, 2009 – Elizabeth Whittington
Bookshelf
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Web Exclusive: Follow-Up Care for Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – The National Cancer Institute
Weighing Prevention Versus Cost
June 09, 2006 – Melissa Knopper
Diagnosing Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – Susan R. Peck, PhD
Sharing a Lifetime
June 09, 2006
Sunburn Reasons & Remedies
June 09, 2006 – Monica Zangwill, MD
Inherited Syndromes Link Cancers
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Future Risk for Survivors
June 09, 2006 – Rabiya S. Tuma, PhD
Nature's Spoils
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
The Discovery of Taxol
June 09, 2006 – Frank Stephenson
Melanoma: The Other Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Picture Not Perfect
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Science of Suncreen
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Planning for Death
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Does Heaven Exist?
June 09, 2006 – Jo Cavallo
To Be or Not To Be: Is That the Right Question?
June 09, 2006 – Harvey Max Chochinov, MD PhD
Is It Time to Change the Design of Clinical Trials?
June 09, 2006 – Alice McCarthy
Drink Up
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
A Life Well-Lived
June 09, 2006 – Deborah Lang Hampton
Web Exclusive: Caregivers Often Neglect Their Mental Health
June 09, 2006 – The American Cancer Society
Letters from Our Readers
June 09, 2006
Message from the Editor-at-Large
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Choosing a Counselor
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Tips for Preventing Infection
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Cancer as a Legacy
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Fighting Cancer Together
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Running on Empty
June 09, 2006 – Melissa Knopper
The Blame Game
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
People & Places
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
A Beautiful Day: The Story of a Son's Loss
June 09, 2006 – Kevin Cropp
Surf & Turf
June 09, 2006 – Jennifer M. Gangloff
Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: Saving Your Skin
June 09, 2006 – Monica Zangwill, MD
Confronting Death
June 09, 2006 – Jo Cavallo
Glossary
January 16, 2009 – Jennifer M. Gangloff
Breaking News from ASCO
June 09, 2006 – Staff Reports
House Call
June 09, 2006 – Jay Thomas, MD, PhD
Breast Cancer & MDS
January 09, 2009 – Elizabeth Whittington
Bookshelf
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Web Exclusive: Follow-Up Care for Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – The National Cancer Institute
Weighing Prevention Versus Cost
June 09, 2006 – Melissa Knopper
Diagnosing Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – Susan R. Peck, PhD
Sharing a Lifetime
June 09, 2006
Sunburn Reasons & Remedies
June 09, 2006 – Monica Zangwill, MD
Inherited Syndromes Link Cancers
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Future Risk for Survivors
June 09, 2006 – Rabiya S. Tuma, PhD
Nature's Spoils
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
The Discovery of Taxol
June 09, 2006 – Frank Stephenson
Melanoma: The Other Skin Cancer
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Picture Not Perfect
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Science of Suncreen
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Planning for Death
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Does Heaven Exist?
June 09, 2006 – Jo Cavallo
To Be or Not To Be: Is That the Right Question?
June 09, 2006 – Harvey Max Chochinov, MD PhD
Currently Viewing
Is It Time to Change the Design of Clinical Trials?
June 09, 2006 – Alice McCarthy
A Life Well-Lived
June 09, 2006 – Deborah Lang Hampton
Web Exclusive: Caregivers Often Neglect Their Mental Health
June 09, 2006 – The American Cancer Society
Letters from Our Readers
June 09, 2006
Message from the Editor-at-Large
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Choosing a Counselor
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Tips for Preventing Infection
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Cancer as a Legacy
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
Fighting Cancer Together
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
Running on Empty
June 09, 2006 – Melissa Knopper
The Blame Game
June 09, 2006 – Kathy LaTour
People & Places
June 09, 2006 – Elizabeth Whittington
A Beautiful Day: The Story of a Son's Loss
June 09, 2006 – Kevin Cropp
Surf & Turf
June 09, 2006 – Jennifer M. Gangloff
Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: Saving Your Skin
June 09, 2006 – Monica Zangwill, MD
Confronting Death
June 09, 2006 – Jo Cavallo

Is It Time to Change the Design of Clinical Trials?

 Some cancer researchers are questioning whether clinical trial designs should be updated.

BY Alice McCarthy
PUBLISHED June 09, 2006

No one would argue the current design of clinical trials in the United States isn’t a big improvement over history, since early experiments in medicine involved unscientific and inefficient methods for assigning patients to treatments.

“Up until about 60 years ago—when the randomized trial came into existence—the standards in medical research were shoddy at best,” says Donald Berry, PhD, chairman of the department of biostatistics at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “Information was collected by anecdote and superstition more than science.”

But some leading cancer researchers find current designs outdated. “It’s clear the current designs are inadequate, particularly in cancers in which we desperately need to make progress more rapidly,” says Francis Giles, MD, chief of developmental therapeutics within the department of leukemia at M.D. Anderson. “We certainly can do better.”

The statistical method used almost exclusively to design and monitor clinical trials is called the frequentist method. These trials include a set number of patients randomized to one of two or more treatment groups and is conducted for a pre-determined length of time, with results assessed at select endpoints. “But at the end of these trials, you usually wish you had done something different,” says Dr. Berry.

Drs. Berry and Giles believe Bayesian trials—studies that allow for changes in the trial as it progresses—are a major step forward. The concept is certainly not new, having been named after the Reverend Thomas Bayes, a Presbyterian minister and mathematician, who outlined the method in an article published in 1763. In a Bayesian-based trial, the study adapts to statistical information created during the course of the trial. Before the trial starts, investigators design a flow chart of actions if certain events become statistically dominant.

“In Bayesian trials, you have to consider all the possibilities ahead of time and plan for alternatives,” explains Dr. Berry, who wrote about the Bayesian method in the January 2006 issue of Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. For example, if it becomes statistically clear that one treatment group is having more success, fewer new patients are recruited into the less-favorable group and those currently in that group can switch or choose another study altogether. Similarly, if a treatment appears to be superior at a particular dose, other doses are phased out. And if serious toxicity arises in a treatment, patients migrate to another treatment or dose. By declaring a success or failure earlier, Dr. Berry says the result is more likely to be statistically accurate. Frequentist trials almost never use information accrued during the trial to affect the course of the study.

Dr. Berry says the traditional trial method has had enormous and appropriate impacts in medical research. “I don’t want to lose that, but there are problems with it.” So far, more than 200 Bayesian-based clinical trials have been proposed or conducted at M.D. Anderson, and other researchers are embracing the concept, including the Cancer and Leukemia Group B research group.

While the Food and Drug Administration accepts Bayesian-based clinical trials when assessing the safety and efficacy of new medical devices, only one drug—the heart medication Pravigard PAC—has ever been approved based on the Bayesian approach. But movements are afoot at the FDA for using these study designs for drug approvals.

Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for operations, says the FDA believes Bayesian approaches should be incorporated into clinical trial design for drug testing because of the targeted therapy boom. “The trial approaches we use now are probably not the best ones for the new science we are bringing to cancer.” She points to Tarceva (erlotinib) and Iressa (gefitinib), both of which treat lung cancer, as examples. “We put patients into a study and find that 10 percent benefit. But we don’t know which 10 percent. What we want to do is figure out in advance who benefits and not expose those who don’t.”

An important missing link, she says, is the availability of diagnostic tests that can tell in advance of therapy what cancer pathways are active in a particular patient’s disease. “We [at the FDA] do not want to be a roadblock, but if we don’t have the tools to know who can benefit from a drug, we will not be able to approve new drugs,” says Dr. Woodcock.

“I see no rationale to further delay moving to these designs,” says Dr. Giles, who is currently involved in eight Bayesian-based leukemia studies. “They are more ethical, more patient-friendly, more conserving of resources, more statistically desirable. I think the next big issue is to get the FDA to accept them as the basis for new drug approvals.”

Be the first to discuss this article on CURE's forum. >>
Talk about this article with other patients, caregivers, and advocates in the General Discussions CURE discussion group.

Related Articles

1
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!
×

Sign Up

Are you a member? Please Log In