PURPOSE With deeper insight into precision medicine, more innovative oncology trial designs have been proposed to contribute to the characteristics of novel antitumor drugs. Bayesian information borrowing is an indispensable part of these designs, which shows great advantages in improving the efficiency of clinical trials. Bayesian methods provide an effective framework when incorporating information. However, the key point lies in how to choose an appropriate method for complex oncology clinical trials. METHODS We divided the borrowing information scenarios into concurrent and nonconcurrent scenarios according to whether the data to be borrowed are observed at the same time as in the current trial or not. Then, we provided an overview of the methods in each scenario. Performance comparison of different methods is carried out with regard to the type I error and power. RESULTS As demonstrated by the simulation results in each borrowing scenario, the Bayesian hierarchical model and its extensions are more appropriate for concurrent borrowing. The simulation results demonstrate that the Bayesian hierarchical model shows great advantages when the arms are homogeneous. However, such a method should be adopted with caution when heterogeneity exists. We recommend the other methods, considering heterogeneity. Borrow information from informative priors is more suggested for nonconcurrent borrowing scenarios. Multisource exchangeability models are more suitable for multiple historical trials, while meta-analytic-predictive prior should be carefully applied. CONCLUSION Bayesian information borrowing is useful and can improve the efficiency of clinical trial designs. However, we should carefully choose an appropriate information borrowing method when facing a practical innovative oncology trial, as an appropriate method is essential to provide ideal design performance.

For novel molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies, the objective of dose-finding is often to identify the optimal biological dose, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, optimal biological doses may not be the same for different indications, challenging the traditional dose-finding framework. Therefore, we proposed a Bayesian phase I/II basket trial design, named “shotgun-2,” to identify indication-specific optimal biological doses. A dose-escalation part is conducted in stage I to identify the maximum tolerated dose and admissible dose sets. In stage II, dose optimization is performed incorporating both toxicity and efficacy for each indication. Simulation studies under both fixed and random scenarios show that, compared with the traditional “phase I  +  cohort expansion” design, the shotgun-2 design is robust and can improve the probability of correctly selecting the optimal biological doses. Furthermore, this study provides a useful tool for identifying indication-specific optimal biological doses and accelerating drug development.

This article has earned an open data badge "Reproducible Research" for making publicly available the code necessary to reproduce the reported results. The results reported in this article could fully be reproduced.

No abstract

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development. The agency pointed out that the current paradigm for dose selection—based on the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)—is not sufficient for molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, for which efficacy may not increase after the dose reaches a certain level. In these cases, it is more appropriate to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) that optimizes the risk–benefit tradeoff of the drug. Project Optimus has spurred tremendous interest and urgent need for guidance on designing dose optimization trials. In this article, we review several representative dose optimization designs, including model‐based and model‐assisted designs, and compare their operating characteristics based on 10,000 randomly generated scenarios with various dose‐toxicity and dose‐efficacy curves and some fixed representative scenarios. The results show that, compared with model‐based designs, model‐assisted methods have advantages of easy‐to‐implement, robustness, and high accuracy to identify OBD. Some guidance is provided to help biostatisticians and clinicians to choose appropriate dose optimization methods in practice.