Search

The test treatment in confirmatory clinical trials is often assessed using multiple primary endpoints. We considered that trial efficacy is confirmed only when there is superiority of at least one endpoint and non-inferiority of the remaining endpoints. Some researchers proposed testing procedures for multiple primary endpoints that are continuous variables. However, there has not yet been discussion of the case in which a trial has multiple binary endpoints in the above framework. In this study, we consider a testing procedure for multiple primary endpoints that are binary, and evaluate the performance of the proposed method through simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positive and negative predictive values describe the clinical performance of the diagnostic test when it is applied to a cohort of individuals. Testing non-inferiority of predictive values may be adequate in some cases due to the simplicity of the examination and the invasiveness of the test, but no non-inferiority test for predictive values has been proposed yet. In this study, we propose a non-inferiority test that investigates the non-inferiority of predictive values in paired designs, and formulae for the calculation of sample size to execute the non-inferiority test of two predictive values. Simulation studies showed that the proposed non-inferiority test is useful for comparing two predictive values in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positive and negative predictive values describe the performance of a diagnostic test. There are several methods to test the equality of predictive values in paired designs. However, these methods were premised on large sample theory, and they may not be suitable for small‐size clinical trials because of inflation of the type 1 error rate. In this study, we propose an exact test to control the type 1 error rate strictly for conducting a small‐size clinical trial that investigates the equality of predictive values in paired designs. In addition, we execute simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed exact test and existing methods in small‐size clinical trials. The proposed test can calculate the exact P value, and as a result of simulations, the empirical type 1 error rate for the proposed test did not exceed the significance level regardless of the setting, and the empirical power for the proposed test is not much different from the other methods based on large‐sample theory. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed exact test is useful when the type 1 error rate needs to be controlled strictly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Traditionally, the target of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for ovarian cancer was patients with minimal residual disease after debulking surgery. However, our pharmacological study suggested that IP carboplatin therapy should also be feasible for patients with larger size residual disease, and our previous phase 2 study demonstrated a satisfactory response rate of IP carboplatin plus dose-dense paclitaxel (ddTCip) regimen in patients with macroscopic residual disease after initial surgery for ovarian (OV), fallopian tube (FT), and primary peritoneal (PP) carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to assess whether IP administration of carboplatin is superior to intravenous (IV) administration of carboplatin (ddTCiv regimen) in OV, FT, and PP carcinoma patients with either minimal or macroscopic residual disease. Methods: Eligible patients were those with newly diagnosed stages II-IV disease. All patients were to undergo an initial laparotomy or laparoscopy with primary debulking surgery if possible. Before abdomen was closed, patients were randomized to either IV or IP arm. An IP port and catheter was placed if the patient was assigned to IP arm. Chemotherapy regimen was either IV paclitaxel plus IV carboplatin (IV arm) or IV paclitaxel plus IP carboplatin (IP arm). Dose of paclitaxel was 80 mg/m2 Q1W and dose of carboplatin was at an area under the curve (AUC) of 6 Q3W. Each patient was to receive 6 to 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Patients with bulky residual disease were allowed to undergo interval debulking surgery followed by assigned arm regimen up to 8 cycles total. Primary endpoint was PFS, and secondary endpoints included OS, safety, QOL, and cost/benefit. Results: Total of 655 patients were randomized between 2010 and 2016 from Japan, Singapore, Korea, New Zealand, USA, and Hong Kong. Stage distribution was II (n= 88), III (n=448), and IV (n=119). Size of residual disease at randomization was either 0 cm (n=163), < 1 cm (n=97), 1-2 cm (n=33), or >2 cm (n=362). Histological types were serous (n=420), endometrioid (n=61), clear cell (n=74), and others (n=100). Median follow-up was 55.7 months. IP chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in the ITT population (HR=0.83, 95%CI:0.69-0.99, p=.041) and in the 602 eligible patients (HR=0.78, 95%CI:0.65-0.94, p=.009). Median PFS for ITT population was 20.7 (95%CI: 18.1-22.8) months in the IV arm and 23.5 (95%CI: 20.5-26.9) months in the IP arm. Median PFS for eligible patients was 20.0 (95%CI: 18.0-22.2) months in the IV arm and 22.9 (95%CI:19.6-26.9) months in the IP arm. Subset analysis showed that the survival benefit was greater in patients with larger size residual disease. Toxicity profile was essentially equivalent in both arms except for catheter-related toxicities (11.8%). Conclusions: ddTCip chemotherapy improved the PFS over ddTCiv regimen in patients with OV, FT, and PP carcinoma regardless of the residual tumor size after initial surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]