Predicting Success of Phase III Trials in Oncology
Hegge, S. J.; Thunecke, M. E.; Krings, M.; Ruedin, L.; Mueller, J. S.; von Buenau, P.
Show abstract
ImportanceWe developed a model predicting the probability of success (PoS) for single planned or ongoing PhIII trials based on information available at trial initiation. Such a model is highly relevant for study sponsors to capture risk and opportunity on a trial-to-trial basis through trial optimization, and for investors to select drugs whose trial design match their investment strategy. ObjectivesTo predict the outcome of planned or ongoing PhIII trials in oncology, given publicly available prior information Design, Setting, ParticipantsPredictive modeling using publicly available data for 360 completed PhIII and 1240 PhII studies initiated between 2003 and 2012. Success and failure of PhIII studies were modeled using Bayesian logistic regression model. Main Outcome MeasuresPredicted PoS of individual PhIII trials based on a Bayesian model calibrated on publicly available data translated into 16 composite scores. Those scores cover aspects such as trial design, indication, number of patients, phase II (PhII) study outcomes, experience of sponsor at time of trial initiation, and others. ResultsThe model allows to calculate the PoS distribution - including credible intervals - for a PhIII trial in oncology. The predictive performance was determined using an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC), resulting in an overall performance of 73%oPP (mean AUROC). We identified two key factors contributing to the predictive performance of the model: quality and strength of PhII data and experience of the sponsor at the time of study initiation. Conclusion and RelevanceWe describe the generation and application of a statistical model predicting the PoS for individual PhIII trials in oncological indications with unprecedented predictive performance. Compared to other approaches, this is the first study generating a fully transparent model resulting in trial-specific PoS distributions. Moreover, we have shown that qualitative concepts such as PhII knowledge or sponsor R&D strength can be captured in quantitative scores and that these scores have a high predictive power. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSWhat is the probability of success (PoS) for single phase III (PhII)I trials in oncology? FindingsWe developed a model allowing to predict the PoS of single PhIII trials in oncology with a predictive performance of 73%PP and demonstrated that qualitative factors such as strength of PhII knowledge and sponsor R&D strength can be captured in quantitative scores that have significant predictive power. MeaningThe model can help study sponsors to analyze and amend planned clinical trials, and investors to choose where to invest best.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- NCT Precision Oncology Thesaurus Drugs – a Curated Database for Drugs, Drug Classes, and Drug Targets in Precision Cancer Medicine 94%
- Histology-based Prediction of Therapy Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Adenocarcinomas Using Deep Learning 92%
- Machine learning and mechanistic modeling for prediction of metastatic relapse in breast cancer 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trial Risk Assessment 96%
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Real-World Data from a Large Clinical Data Research Network to Simulate Clinical Trials of Alzheimer’s Disease 92%
- Federated Target Trial Emulation using Distributed Observational Data for Treatment Effect Estimation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 94%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 93%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.