Searcharxiv⌕ 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

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

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗