Abstract
Background
Integrated phase II/III trial designs implement the phase II and phase III aspects of oncology studies into a single trial. Despite a body of literature discussing the merits of integrated phase II/III clinical trial designs within the past two decades, implementation of this design has been limited in oncology studies.
Purpose
We provide a brief discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages of integrated phase II/III clinical trial designs in oncology and provide an example of the operating characteristics of a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial.
Methods
We review the differences among proposed integrated phase II/III designs. Then, we illustrate the use of the design in a brain tumor trial to be conducted by the RTOG and examine the impact of association between endpoints on design performance in terms of type I error, power, study duration, and expected sample size.
Results
Although integrated phase II/III designs should not be used in all situations, under appropriate conditions, significant gains can be achieved when using integrated phase II/III designs, including smaller sample size, time and resources savings, and shorter study duration.
Limitations
Data submission without delay and sufficient evaluation of intermediate endpoints are assumed.
Conclusions
Although there are potential benefits in using phase II/III designs, there also may be disadvantages. We recommend running design simulations incorporating theoretical and practical issues before implementing an integrated phase II/III design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.