Evaluating the impact of stratification on the power and cross-arm balance of randomized phase 2 clinical trials.

Background/aims: Randomized clinical trials often use stratification to ensure balance between arms. Analysis of primary endpoints of these trials typically uses a "stratified analysis," in which analyses are performed separately in each subgroup defined by the stratification factors, and those separate analyses are weighted and combined. In the phase 3 setting, stratified analyses based on a small number of stratification factors can provide a small increase in power.

Accrual Suspensions in Seamless Phase II/III Trials: A Review of NRG Oncology Trials.

Purpose: A phase II/III trial is a type of phase III trial that has embedded in it an intermediate phase II go/no-go decision as to whether to continue the accrual to the phase III sample size. We examine the design characteristics and experience of a well-defined set of National Cancer Institute phase II/III trials, with special emphasis on designed accrual suspensions while awaiting the data to become mature enough for the phase II analysis. This experience is used to highlight the potential of using a calendar backstop to avoid an inordinately long accrual suspension.

Phase III Evaluation of Treatment Combinations in Three-Arm Trials.

Phase III trials that randomly assign patients to a control treatment (C), an experimental treatment (A), or a combination treatment (AB) should be designed with the goal to recommend the best treatment: AB (if it is better than A and C), A (if it is better than C, and AB is not better than A), or C (if neither AB nor A is better than C). However, this goal can be challenging to achieve with statistical confidence. We performed a survey of cancer trials published in five journals from January 2018 to May 2024 to assess the trial designs being used in this setting and found that three quarters of them did not have a provision for a formal comparison of the AB treatment arm with the A treatment arm, a possible shortcoming.

Two-to-One Randomization: Rarely Advisable.

In a randomized clinical trial, instead of allocating patients equally between the treatment arms, some trials in oncology assign a higher proportion of patients to receive the experimental treatment arm (eg, a two-to-one randomization). In this commentary, we first briefly review the common reasons given for the use of a two-to-one randomization and provide some examples of trials using these designs. We then explain why the risk-benefit ratio of this approach may not be favorable as is commonly assumed.