Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2210.02903

Optimal predictive probability designs for randomized biomarker-guided oncology trials

Emily C. Zabor·Alexander M. Kaizer·Nathan A. Pennell·Brian P. Hobbs
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Efforts to develop biomarker-targeted anti-cancer therapies have progressed rapidly in recent years. Six antibodies acting on programmed death ligand 1 or programmed death 1 pathways were approved in 75 cancer indications between 2015 and 2021. With efforts to expedite regulatory reviews of promising therapies, several targeted cancer therapies have been granted accelerated approval on the basis of single-arm phase II trials. And yet, in the absence of randomization, patient outcomes may not have been studied under standard of care chemotherapies for emerging biomarker subpopulations prior to the submission of an accelerated approval application. Historical control rates used in single arm studies often arise as population averages, lacking specificity to the targeted subgroup. For example, a recent phase III trial of atezolizumab in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma found a 21.6% response rate to standard of care chemotherapy in the biomarker subgbroup of interest, much higher than the historical control rate of 10% that had been used to declare success in the preceding phase II trial. Innovations in design methodology are needed to enable efficient implementation of randomized trials for agents that target biomarker subpopulations. This article proposes three randomized designs for early phase biomarker-guided oncology clinical trials. Each design utilizes the optimal efficiency predictive probability method to monitor multiple biomarker subpopulations for futility. A simulation study motivated by the results reported in the atezolizumab trial is used to evaluate the operating characteristics of the various designs. Our findings suggest that efficient statistical design can be conducted with randomization and futility stopping to effectively acquire more evidence pertaining to comparative efficacy before deciding to conduct a phase III confirmatory trial.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Emily C. Zabor, Alexander M. Kaizer, Nathan A. Pennell, Brian P. Hobbs. 2022-10-06. Optimal predictive probability designs for randomized biomarker-guided oncology trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02903

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗