Paternalism and certitude

When paternalism is deemed morally justified, weak paternalism—which restricts itself to assisting the target of paternalism realize his own preferences—is the preferred (less problematic) alternative. In determining the appropriateness of weak paternalism, the level of certitude of the paternalist regarding the correctness of her assessment of the true preferences of the one-paternalized is obviously a crucial factor. Yet in the ethics of paternalism this parameter has escaped systematic treatment. This paper aims to initiate discussion on this indispensable consideration for weak paternalism. Analysing a real-life dilemma of paternalism in healthcare, the paper focuses on the theoretical question of how the paternalist can optimize her certitude by combining personal knowledge of the individual patient with population data on treatment refusal/consent of patients facing similar decisions. The paper presents an outline of a decision-making scheme that can be valuable in medical ethics and beyond.     

A multistate model for early decision-making in oncology

The development of oncology drugs progresses through multiple phases, where after each phase, a decision is made about whether to move a molecule forward. Early phase efficacy decisions are often made on the basis of single-arm studies based on a set of rules to define whether the tumor improves (“responds”), remains stable, or progresses (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors [RECIST]). These decision rules are implicitly assuming some form of surrogacy between tumor response and long-term endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). With the emergence of new therapies, for which the link between RECIST tumor response and long-term endpoints is either not accessible yet, or the link is weaker than with classical chemotherapies, tumor response-based rules may not be optimal. In this paper, we explore the use of a multistate model for decision-making based on single-arm early phase trials. The multistate model allows to account for more information than the simple RECIST response status, namely, the time to get to response, the duration of response, the PFS time, and time to death. We propose to base the decision on efficacy on the OS hazard ratio (HR) comparing historical control to data from the experimental treatment, with the latter predicted from a multistate model based on early phase data with limited survival follow-up. Using two case studies, we illustrate feasibility of the estimation of such an OS HR. We argue that, in the presence of limited follow-up and small sample size, and making realistic assumptions within the multistate model, the OS prediction is acceptable and may lead to better early decisions within the development of a drug.     

Adjusting Simon's optimal two-stage design for heterogeneous populations based on stratification or using historical controls

In many cancer studies, the population under consideration is highly heterogeneous in terms of clinical, demographical, and biological covariates. As the covariates substantially impact the individual prognosis, the response probabilities of patients entering the study may strongly vary. In this case, the operating characteristics of classical clinical trial designs heavily depend on the covariates of patients entering the study. Notably, both type I and type II errors can be much higher than specified. In this paper, two modifications of Simon's optimal two-stage design correcting for heterogeneous populations are derived. The first modification assumes that the patient population is divided into a finite number of subgroups, where each subgroup has a different response probability. The second approach uses a logistic regression model based on historical controls to estimate the response probabilities of patients entering the study. The performance of both approaches is demonstrated using simulation examples.     

The area between ROC curves,a non-parametric method to evaluate a biomarker for patient treatment selection

Treatment selection markers are generally sought for when the benefit of an innovative treatment in comparison with a reference treatment is considered, and this benefit is suspected to vary according to the characteristics of the patients. Classically, such quantitative markers are detected through testing a marker-by-treatment interaction in a parametric regression model. Most alternative methods rely on modeling the risk of event occurrence in each treatment arm or the benefit of the innovative treatment over the marker values, but with assumptions that may be difficult to verify. Herein, a simple non-parametric approach is proposed to detect and assess the general capacity of a quantitative marker for treatment selection when no overall difference in efficacy could be demonstrated between two treatments in a clinical trial. This graphical method relies on the area between treatment-arm-specific receiver operating characteristic curves (ABC), which reflects the treatment selection capacity of the marker. A simulation study assessed the inference properties of the ABC estimator and compared them with other parametric and non-parametric indicators. The simulations showed that the estimate of the ABC had low bias, power comparable to parametric indicators, and that its confidence interval had a good coverage probability (better than the other non-parametric indicator in some cases). Thus, the ABC is a good alternative to parametric indicators. The ABC method was applied to data of the PETACC-8 trial that investigated FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 + cetuximab in stage III colon adenocarcinoma. It enabled the detection of a treatment selection marker: the DDR2 gene.     

Information fraction estimation based on the number of events within the standard treatment regimen

For a Phase III randomized trial that compares survival outcomes between an experimental treatment versus a standard therapy, interim monitoring analysis is used to potentially terminate the study early based on efficacy. To preserve the nominal Type I error rate, alpha spending methods and information fractions are used to compute appropriate rejection boundaries in studies with planned interim analyses. For a one-sided trial design applied to a scenario in which the experimental therapy is superior to the standard therapy, interim monitoring should provide the opportunity to stop the trial prior to full follow-up and conclude that the experimental therapy is superior. This paper proposes a method called total control only (TCO) for estimating the information fraction based on the number of events within the standard treatment regimen. Based on theoretical derivations and simulation studies, for a maximum duration superiority design, the TCO method is not influenced by departure from the designed hazard ratio, is sensitive to detecting treatment differences, and preserves the Type I error rate compared to information fraction estimation methods that are based on total observed events. The TCO method is simple to apply, provides unbiased estimates of the information fraction, and does not rely on statistical assumptions that are impossible to verify at the design stage. For these reasons, the TCO method is a good approach when designing a maximum duration superiority trial with planned interim monitoring analyses.     

Statistical inference for net benefit measures in biomarker validation studies

Referral strategies based on risk scores and medical tests are commonly proposed. Direct assessment of their clinical utility requires implementing the strategy and is not possible in the early phases of biomarker research. Prior to late-phase studies, net benefit measures can be used to assess the potential clinical impact of a proposed strategy. Validation studies, in which the biomarker defines a prespecified referral strategy, are a gold standard approach to evaluating biomarker potential. Uncertainty, quantified by a confidence interval, is important to consider when deciding whether a biomarker warrants an impact study, does not demonstrate clinical potential, or that more data are needed. We establish distribution theory for empirical estimators of net benefit and propose empirical estimators of variance. The primary results are for the most commonly employed estimators of net benefit: from cohort and unmatched case-control samples, and for point estimates and net benefit curves. Novel estimators of net benefit under stratified two-phase and categorically matched case-control sampling are proposed and distribution theory developed. Results for common variants of net benefit and for estimation from right-censored outcomes are also presented. We motivate and demonstrate the methodology with examples from lung cancer research and highlight its application to study design.     

Designing precision medicine trials to yield a greater population impact

Traditionally, a clinical trial is conducted comparing treatment to standard care for all patients. However, it could be inefficient given patients’ heterogeneous responses to treatments, and rapid advances in the molecular understanding of diseases have made biomarker-based clinical trials increasingly popular. We propose a new targeted clinical trial design, termed as Max-Impact design, which selects the appropriate subpopulation for a clinical trial and aims to optimize population impact once the trial is completed. The proposed design not only gains insights on the patients who would be included in the trial but also considers the benefit to the excluded patients. We develop novel algorithms to construct enrollment rules for optimizing population impact, which are fairly general and can be applied to various types of outcomes. Simulation studies and a data example from the SWOG Cancer Research Network demonstrate the competitive performance of our proposed method compared to traditional untargeted and targeted designs.