There is an increasing interest in the evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for personalizing cancer care. The literature on the trial designs for evaluation of these markers is diverse and there is no consensus in the classification or nomenclature. We set this study to review the literature systematically, to identify the proposed trial designs, and to develop a classification scheme. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methodology Register, and MathSciNet up to January 2013 for articles describing these trial designs. In each eligible article, we identified the trial designs presented and extracted the term used for labeling the design, components of patient flow (marker status of eligible participants, intervention, and comparator), study questions, and analysis plan. Our search strategy resulted in 88 eligible articles, wherein 315 labels had been used by authors in presenting trial designs; 134 of these were unique. By analyzing patient flow components, we could classify the 134 unique design labels into four basic patient flow categories, which we labeled with the most frequently used term: single-arm, enrichment, randomize-all, and biomarker-strategy designs. A fifth category consists of combinations of the other four patient flow categories. Our review showed that a considerable number of labels has been proposed for trial designs evaluating prognostic and predictive biomarkers which, based on patient flow elements, can be classified into five basic categories. The classification system proposed here could help clinicians and researchers in designing and interpreting trials evaluating predictive biomarkers, and could reduce confusion in labeling and reporting. Clin Cancer Res; 19(17); 4578–88. ©2013 AACR.

Recent progress in understanding the molecular basis of cancer has redefined the landscape for achieving stratified and personalized medicine for patients with cancer. Ongoing efforts concentrate on the translation of these molecular insights into biomarkers that can reliably guide application of existing and new cancer treatments.

Biomarkers that are informative for selecting treatment can be broadly classified as prognostic or predictive biomarkers. Prognostic biomarkers classify patients treated with standard therapies—including no treatment, if that is standard practice—into subgroups with distinct expected clinical outcomes. Predictive biomarkers identify patients whose tumors are likely to be sensitive or resistant to a specific agent (1). Valid and definitive evidence showing the clinical use of these biomarkers can be obtained by conducting well-designed clinical trials with adequate sample size (13). These clinical trials are planned to evaluate biomarker-based treatment strategies. Their design often differs from the more conventional comparative clinical trials of interventions. Following the recent dramatic developments in the technologies for identifying potential novel biomarkers and the huge increase in the number of claimed biomarkers, there has also been a great expansion in the number of trial designs proposed for validation of biomarkers for treatment selection purposes.

A rapid review of the biomarker trial designs in the oncology literature suggests substantial variability in the designs, as well as in the terms proposed by authors for labeling them. This makes retrieval, interpretation, comparison, and critical appraisal of these types of studies complicated for consumers of trial results, who can be practicing physicians, researchers, or policymakers. The variability in labeling is a phenomenon typical for many rapidly developing areas of science. However, now that the field is maturing, and experts in other fields of medicine, such as cardiovascular diseases and infectious diseases, have started to apply the methodologic achievements of the oncology biomarker trials, it is time for harmonizing the terminologies in use and framing a classification of the designs. A harmonized terminology for describing biomarker clinical trials and a simple classification scheme may help in speeding up the translation process of the biomarker findings and could assist in paving the way for making personalized medicine a reality.

Here, we report on a systematic review of literature on trial designs for evaluating biomarkers for treatment selection. The review is based on a comprehensive and systematic search in multiple databases. We propose a classification scheme based on the flow of patients in these trials. The classification system is presented using recent biomarker clinical trials in oncology as examples, along with the main questions each category of designs can answer.

Literature search

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methodology Register, and MathSciNet up to 15 January 2013, and hand searched references and cited articles of all included studies using the Web of Science database. The search filters that we developed and used in collaboration with a clinical librarian are presented in the Supplementary Materials and Methods. Eligible for inclusion were methodologic articles that described one or more trial designs for identification and/or validation of prognostic or predictive biomarkers for treatment selection. The search was not limited to oncology. No language restrictions were applied.

One author (P. Tajik) independently identified potentially eligible articles by reading titles and abstracts, whereas a second author (P.M. Bossuyt) independently screened a random sample of 400 abstracts to ensure that no abstracts were missed. There was a 99% agreement on the selection of abstracts and disagreements were resolved in consensus discussions. Thereafter, full text copies of all potentially eligible articles were obtained and read in full. Articles were included if they satisfied the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction

From all included articles and for each proposed trial design, we extracted detailed data on the proposed design label, trial objectives, patient flow elements, and the analysis plan. Our definition of patient flow is composed of the biomarker status of participants deemed eligible for the study, the intervention participants are assigned to (whether or not biomarker status is used for assigning study participants to the experimental treatment) and the comparator (standard treatment or both standard and experimental treatments).

Analysis

We started our analysis by developing the list of study labels from all included studies. For each label in the list, we explored the participant–intervention–comparator components of patient flow. We then clustered all study labels with identical components into disjoint categories. The most commonly used label for describing designs of each category was selected for labeling the corresponding category.

Search results

Our initial search yielded 2,506 abstracts, of which 136 were deemed eligible based on title and abstract. After assessing the full texts of these 136 articles, 71 were included. Seventeen other articles were added by hand searching references and citing articles, resulting in a total of 88 articles in the final analysis (Supplementary Table S1). A summary of the search process is outlined in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of search results.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of search results.

Close modal

Trial design labels

From the included articles, we could extract 315 design labels. The identified labels and the definitions as presented in the studies are listed in the Supplementary Table S2. By analyzing the extracted labels along with their patient flow components, we found 134 unique combinations of label and patient flow elements. There were many trial designs with the very same patient flow elements, which had received different labels. There were also a few labels used for describing designs with completely different patient flows. The 134 unique label and patient flow combinations are presented in Table 1. By comparing the patterns of all the included designs, we could distinguish four basic and distinct patient flow categories, as well as a fifth category, consisting of combinations of two or more of the four basic patient flow elements (Table 1). In a later section, we discuss these categories in more detail.

Table 1.

Patient flow elements of the extracted design labels for trials evaluating prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Labels clustered in the same bullet describe identical trial designs and are interchangeable

Design labelsPatientsInterventionComparisonPatient flow category
  • Single-arm (4–8), uncontrolled cohort pharmacogenetic study (50), nonrandomized (34)

 
M+, M Exp — 1. Single-arm  
  • Enrichment (1, 3, 11, 15, 16, 18, 29, 33, 37, 39, 44, 48, 61–75), targeted (2, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 48, 64, 67, 69, 76, 77), enriched (23, 76), marker enrichment (78), biomarker-enrichment (56, 68), biomarker enriched (14, 23, 79, 80), biomarker selected (79), efficient targeted (28), clinically enriched (79), selection (2, 10, 81), RCT of test positives (48), screening enrichment (82)

 
M+ Exp Std 2. Enrichment  
  • Randomize-all (2, 10–13), traditional (23–25), standard (33), conventional (1, 26), simple randomization (28), untargeted (19, 19–22), unselected (18, 64), all-comers (14–18), all-comers (stratified by marker status; ref. 67), including test negatives and positives (73), test as baseline in RCT (48), prospective/retrospective (27), biomarker analysis (30, 38), biomarker analysis within an existing RCT (18), controlled cohort phrmacogenetic study (50), retrospective biomarker (79), indirect predictive biomarker-based (46), hybrid (77)

  • Sequential testing strategy (16, 18)

  • Prospective subset (2)

  • Adaptive threshold (29, 64, 76, 78), biomarker adaptive threshold (74)

  • Adaptive biomarker (33)

  • Adaptive signature (23, 41, 44, 62, 67, 69, 70, 83, 84), molecular signature (62), cross-validated adaptive signature (42), generalized adaptive signature (33)

  • Marker stratified (28), marker-stratified (16), biomarker-stratified (29, 30), biomarker-stratified with fall back analysis (69), stratified randomized (31), separate randomization (35), stratification (33, 34), stratified (65), stratified analysis (25), nontargeted RCT (stratified by marker; ref. 32), marker by treatment interaction (30, 53), marker-by-treatment interaction (8), treatment by marker interaction (3), treatment-by-marker interaction (64), marker × treatment interaction (85), interaction (10), treatment-marker interaction (11)

  • Outcome-based adaptive randomization (5, 36), adaptive randomization (15, 76, 86), Bayesian adaptive (68), Bayesian adaptive randomization (2, 28, 62), combined dynamic multiarm (80)

 
M+, M Exp Std 3. Randomize-all  
  • Biomarker-strategy, with biomarker assessment in the control arm (1), marker strategy (33, 82, 85), biomarker-strategy (15, 38, 44), biomarker-strategy (23), strategy (13), marker-based strategy (3, 30, 45, 53, 61, 76, 87), marker-based (39), random disclosure (48), customized (12), parallel controlled phrmacogenetic study (50), marker-based strategy design I (45), strategy (13), classifier randomization design (49), biomarker-guided (47), individual profile (10), biomarker-based assignment of specific drug therapy (62)

  • Sequential before–after pharmacogenetic diagnostic study (50)

 
M+, M M-based strategy Std 4. Biomarker-strategy a. With biomarker assessment in the control arm 
  • Biomarker-strategy without biomarker assessment in the control arm (1), biomarker-strategy design with standard control (2), direct predictive biomarker-based (46), RCT of testing (48), test-treatment (51), parallel controlled pharmacogenetic diagnostic study (50), marker strategy (28, 33, 70), marker-based with no randomization in the nonmarker-based arm (35), classical (48), trials of a single tests/comparing two strategies (22)

 
Unknown M-based strategy Std  b. Without biomarker assessment in the control arm 
      
  • Modified marker-based strategy (31, 33, 53, 68), biomarker-strategy with randomized control (2), marker-based design with randomization in the nonmarker-based arm (35), marker-based strategy design II (45), marker-strategy (28), augmented strategy (13)

 
M+, M M-based strategy Exp, Std  c. With treatment randomization in the control arm 
  • Combination of biomarker trial designs (1)

  • Hybrid (18, 37, 76, 88)

  • Intermediate risk randomized (2), two-way stratified (49, 89), modified marker strategy (33)

  • Discordant risk randomization (2), discrepant case randomized (31), discordant test results RCT (48)

  • Two-stage sample-enrichment (54), two-stage enrichment (16)

  • Tandem two-step phase II predictor marker evaluation (60), tandem two-step phase II predictor biomarker evaluation (7), tandem two step (2, 7), tandem two stage (2), adaptive (16, 23, 67, 90)

  • Adaptive patient enrichment (55), adaptive accrual (18, 37, 78), adaptive accrual based on interim analysis (64), adaptive modifying types of patients accrued (33)

  • Adaptive parallel Simon two-stage (88), biomarker-adaptive parallel two-stage (7), adaptive parallel (2), two-stage Bayesian (63)

  • Bayesian covariate adjusted response-adaptive (BCARA) randomization (91)

  • Adaptive (16, 23, 62, 67, 69), adaptive analysis (39), adaptive biomarker driven (14), multiarm multistage (67)

  
   5. Combination of patient flow categories 
Design labelsPatientsInterventionComparisonPatient flow category
  • Single-arm (4–8), uncontrolled cohort pharmacogenetic study (50), nonrandomized (34)

 
M+, M Exp — 1. Single-arm  
  • Enrichment (1, 3, 11, 15, 16, 18, 29, 33, 37, 39, 44, 48, 61–75), targeted (2, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 48, 64, 67, 69, 76, 77), enriched (23, 76), marker enrichment (78), biomarker-enrichment (56, 68), biomarker enriched (14, 23, 79, 80), biomarker selected (79), efficient targeted (28), clinically enriched (79), selection (2, 10, 81), RCT of test positives (48), screening enrichment (82)

 
M+ Exp Std 2. Enrichment  
  • Randomize-all (2, 10–13), traditional (23–25), standard (33), conventional (1, 26), simple randomization (28), untargeted (19, 19–22), unselected (18, 64), all-comers (14–18), all-comers (stratified by marker status; ref. 67), including test negatives and positives (73), test as baseline in RCT (48), prospective/retrospective (27), biomarker analysis (30, 38), biomarker analysis within an existing RCT (18), controlled cohort phrmacogenetic study (50), retrospective biomarker (79), indirect predictive biomarker-based (46), hybrid (77)

  • Sequential testing strategy (16, 18)

  • Prospective subset (2)

  • Adaptive threshold (29, 64, 76, 78), biomarker adaptive threshold (74)

  • Adaptive biomarker (33)

  • Adaptive signature (23, 41, 44, 62, 67, 69, 70, 83, 84), molecular signature (62), cross-validated adaptive signature (42), generalized adaptive signature (33)

  • Marker stratified (28), marker-stratified (16), biomarker-stratified (29, 30), biomarker-stratified with fall back analysis (69), stratified randomized (31), separate randomization (35), stratification (33, 34), stratified (65), stratified analysis (25), nontargeted RCT (stratified by marker; ref. 32), marker by treatment interaction (30, 53), marker-by-treatment interaction (8), treatment by marker interaction (3), treatment-by-marker interaction (64), marker × treatment interaction (85), interaction (10), treatment-marker interaction (11)

  • Outcome-based adaptive randomization (5, 36), adaptive randomization (15, 76, 86), Bayesian adaptive (68), Bayesian adaptive randomization (2, 28, 62), combined dynamic multiarm (80)

 
M+, M Exp Std 3. Randomize-all  
  • Biomarker-strategy, with biomarker assessment in the control arm (1), marker strategy (33, 82, 85), biomarker-strategy (15, 38, 44), biomarker-strategy (23), strategy (13), marker-based strategy (3, 30, 45, 53, 61, 76, 87), marker-based (39), random disclosure (48), customized (12), parallel controlled phrmacogenetic study (50), marker-based strategy design I (45), strategy (13), classifier randomization design (49), biomarker-guided (47), individual profile (10), biomarker-based assignment of specific drug therapy (62)

  • Sequential before–after pharmacogenetic diagnostic study (50)

 
M+, M M-based strategy Std 4. Biomarker-strategy a. With biomarker assessment in the control arm 
  • Biomarker-strategy without biomarker assessment in the control arm (1), biomarker-strategy design with standard control (2), direct predictive biomarker-based (46), RCT of testing (48), test-treatment (51), parallel controlled pharmacogenetic diagnostic study (50), marker strategy (28, 33, 70), marker-based with no randomization in the nonmarker-based arm (35), classical (48), trials of a single tests/comparing two strategies (22)

 
Unknown M-based strategy Std  b. Without biomarker assessment in the control arm 
      
  • Modified marker-based strategy (31, 33, 53, 68), biomarker-strategy with randomized control (2), marker-based design with randomization in the nonmarker-based arm (35), marker-based strategy design II (45), marker-strategy (28), augmented strategy (13)

 
M+, M M-based strategy Exp, Std  c. With treatment randomization in the control arm 
  • Combination of biomarker trial designs (1)

  • Hybrid (18, 37, 76, 88)

  • Intermediate risk randomized (2), two-way stratified (49, 89), modified marker strategy (33)

  • Discordant risk randomization (2), discrepant case randomized (31), discordant test results RCT (48)

  • Two-stage sample-enrichment (54), two-stage enrichment (16)

  • Tandem two-step phase II predictor marker evaluation (60), tandem two-step phase II predictor biomarker evaluation (7), tandem two step (2, 7), tandem two stage (2), adaptive (16, 23, 67, 90)

  • Adaptive patient enrichment (55), adaptive accrual (18, 37, 78), adaptive accrual based on interim analysis (64), adaptive modifying types of patients accrued (33)

  • Adaptive parallel Simon two-stage (88), biomarker-adaptive parallel two-stage (7), adaptive parallel (2), two-stage Bayesian (63)

  • Bayesian covariate adjusted response-adaptive (BCARA) randomization (91)

  • Adaptive (16, 23, 62, 67, 69), adaptive analysis (39), adaptive biomarker driven (14), multiarm multistage (67)

  
   5. Combination of patient flow categories 

Trial design categories

To ease the presentation, we present the flow elements for two treatment options, labeled as experimental (Exp) and control (Ctrl), in the presence of a single, binary biomarker (Fig. 2). However, the flow diagrams are generalizable to conditions with more than two treatment options and in which the biomarker has more than two levels, or is numeric. For sake of simplicity and consistency, we define biomarker positivity as the biomarker status that is associated with a better outcome on the experimental treatment. Therefore, in cases where overexpression of the biomarker is associated with a worse response to treatment, we consider the normal expression as biomarker-positive and overexpression as biomarker-negative.

Figure 2.

The main types of patients' flow in RCTs for evaluation of prognostic and prediction biomarkers: (A) single-arm; (B) enrichment; (C) randomize-all; (D) biomarker-strategy with biomarker measurement in the control arm; (E) biomarker-strategy without biomarker measurement in the control arm; (F) biomarker-strategy with treatment randomization in the control arm [Marker (M), biomarker under evaluation].

Figure 2.

The main types of patients' flow in RCTs for evaluation of prognostic and prediction biomarkers: (A) single-arm; (B) enrichment; (C) randomize-all; (D) biomarker-strategy with biomarker measurement in the control arm; (E) biomarker-strategy without biomarker measurement in the control arm; (F) biomarker-strategy with treatment randomization in the control arm [Marker (M), biomarker under evaluation].

Close modal

Single-arm.

In single-arm trials, all patients, irrespective of their biomarker status, are included in the trial and all undergo the experimental treatment (Fig. 2A; refs. 48). This trial has no control group, and no random assignment.

Enrichment.

With an enrichment design, all potentially eligible patients are first tested for the biomarker and only biomarker-positives are randomly assigned to the experimental or control treatment. Other patients are in principle excluded from further investigation in the study (Fig. 2B). We found 12 labels for describing this design, which were all interchangeable and referred to the main feature of the design: biomarker status performs as a key trial eligibility criterion (Table 1).

The pivotal trial for trastuzumab is a well-known example of an enrichment design (9). Patients with HER2-positive breast adenocarcinoma were enrolled and randomly allocated to chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab. This study provided strong evidence that trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy improves outcomes among women with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Randomize-all.

In designs in the randomize-all category, all patients meeting the trial eligibility criteria, irrespective of their biomarker status, are randomly allocated to either experimental or control treatment. Thereafter, associations between biomarker status and treatment response are evaluated (Fig. 2C).

Because its eligibility criteria is not restricted by biomarker status, it has commonly been labeled as “randomize-all” (2, 1013), “all-comers” (1418), or “untargeted” (1922). The design is also called “traditional” (2325) or “conventional” (1, 26) because it has the same patient flow elements as routine randomized controlled trials (RCT) for evaluating treatment options. It is possible that researchers evaluate a biomarker retrospectively, using data and stored biospecimens collected in previously completed RCTs. In such scenarios, trials are commonly labeled as “biomarker analysis within an existing RCT” (18) or “prospective/retrospective” (27). All these label variations mainly refer to the timing of introducing the biomarker question to the trial.

The type of randomization is another source of variability in labeling of randomize-all trials. In cases where a simple 1:1 randomization procedure is applied to all patients, trials are labeled as “simple randomization” (28). However, in cases where the biomarker under evaluation is binary or categorical with few categories, randomization can be done separately for each biomarker category through stratified randomization. Labels such as “biomarker-stratified” (29, 30), “stratified randomized” (31), “non-targeted RCT (stratified by marker)” (32), “stratified analysis” (25), “stratification” (33, 34), and “separate randomization” (35) all refer to this type of randomization. A special case of stratified randomization is when randomization is conducted by means of a Bayesian response-adaptive procedure, rather than a standard equal randomization procedure. The “Bayesian adaptive randomization design” by Zhou and colleagues is an example (36). It has also been called “outcome-based adaptive randomization” (5, 37).

The next source of variability in labeling the trials in the randomize-all category is the trial's statistical analysis plan. In many cases, authors have coined a design label for referring to a randomize-all design when analyzed on the basis of their novel analysis plan. Examples of such labels are “biomarker analysis” (38), “sequential testing” (39), “prospective subset” (2), “adaptive threshold” (40), “adaptive biomarker” (33), “adaptive signature” (41), “cross-validated adaptive signature” (42), and “generalized adaptive signature” (33). All these designs have a randomize-all patient flow structure, but they differ in their analysis plan.

The Sequential Tarceva in unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trial (SATURN; ref. 43) has been labeled as “prospective-subset design” (2). In the SATURN trial, all eligible patients were randomly allocated to erlotinib or placebo plus standard supportive care. The trial had two primary objectives: evaluating the effectiveness of erlotinib separately in all patients and in patients with EGF receptor (EGFR) immunohistochemistry-positive tumors. To address the multiple comparisons issue, authors used an α splitting technique; the α level of 5% was split between the two primary objectives: 3% for all patients and 2% for patients with EGFR immunohistochemistry-positive tumors.

There are five “adaptive” designs in this category, which are labeled after adaptive elements in their analysis plan. Each of these adaptive plans evaluates the efficacy of experimental treatment in all patients and, if not significant, tries to define a biomarker-defined subset that is responsive to the experimental treatment. In settings where a single continuous candidate biomarker is available but its positivity threshold is not predefined, adaptive threshold plans try to find such a threshold (40). Adaptive biomarker designs have been proposed to evaluate multiple binary biomarkers defined in advance (33). Adaptive signature (41) and cross-validated adaptive signature (42) designs develop a predictive combination of biomarkers in a training set of the trial and consequently evaluate it in a test set. The proposed “generalized adaptive signature design” uses a training set of the trial to select among several candidate biomarkers and optimize cutoff points, and thereafter evaluates the selected biomarkers in a test set (33).

Biomarker-strategy.

The distinguishing feature of designs in the biomarker-strategy category is the inclusion of a new management strategy. This strategy is not the standard or experimental treatment, but a prespecified maker-based treatment strategy. For example, biomarker-positive patients would receive experimental therapy, whereas all biomarker-negative patients get standard of care. Eligible patients are randomized to this biomarker-based treatment strategy or to control treatment. In our review, we could identify three subtypes of this category.

Biomarker-strategy, with biomarker assessment in the control arm.

Biomarker status is assessed in all patients enrolled in the trial, who are then randomly allocated to either the biomarker-strategy arm or to standard treatment (ref. 1; Fig. 2D). Some other labels for this design type were biomarker-strategy (15, 38, 44), “marker-based strategy I” (45), “customized strategy” (12), “direct predictive biomarker-based” (46), and “biomarker-guided” (47). There were also other labels in use, such as “random disclosure” (48), “classifier randomization” (49), or “parallel controlled phrmacogenetic study” (50).

Biomarker-strategy, without biomarker measurement in the control arm.

In settings where it is not feasible or ethical to evaluate the biomarker in all patients, biomarker status is only acquired in patients allocated to the biomarker-strategy arm (Fig. 2E). This design is also labeled as “biomarker-strategy with standard control” (2), “direct predictive biomarker-based” (46), “RCT of testing” (48), “test-treatment” (51), or “parallel controlled pharmacogenetic diagnostic study” (50).

Biomarker-strategy, with treatment randomization in the control arm.

Sargent and Allegra (52) have proposed a modification of the biomarker-strategy design, wherein a second randomization between experimental versus control therapy replaces the control arm (Fig. 2F). They called it “modified marker-based strategy” design (53). Some other authors referred to the design as “marker-based strategy design II” (45), “augmented strategy” (13), or simply “marker-strategy” (28).

Combination of patient flows.

A final, fifth category consists of trial designs in which two or more of the aforementioned basic patient flow structures are combined to form a new design. Combination of designs is usually required when the trial aims at evaluating multiple hypotheses, multiple biomarkers, multiple treatments, or when the trial has several stages. Freidlin and colleagues have similarly proposed a category called “combination of biomarker trial designs” in a comparable review of study designs (1).

The simplest combination is when in enrichment trials biomarker-negative patients are not excluded from the study but assigned to control treatment(s) for which the outcomes are assessed. Here, an enrichment flow is combined in parallel with a single-arm trial of standard therapy in biomarker-negative patients. Most authors have referred to this flow as “hybrid” design. An example of a hybrid design is the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx). The study was designed to evaluate Oncotype Dx, a 21-gene recurrence score, in tamoxifen-treated patients with breast cancer. In this trial, patients are divided into three subgroups of low, intermediate, and high risk based on their Oncotype Dx recurrence score. Low-risk patients receive hormonal therapy, high-risk patients receive both hormonal and chemotherapy, whereas patients at intermediate risk are randomized to hormonal therapy or chemotherapy plus hormonal therapy. This trial is a parallel combination of enrichment trial in intermediate-risk group and two single-arm trials in the low- and high-risk groups. Other labels used for this design are “intermediate risk randomized” (2) or “two-way stratified” (49) design.

The Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) trial also has an enrichment element in its patient flow. Here, patients with discordant risk estimations by tumor's clinicopathologic features and a 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) are eligible for randomization. Patients with concordant risk estimations receive control treatment. Consenting discordant patients are randomized to treatment determined on the basis of the clinocopathologic risk category versus MammaPrint risk category. This way, the MINDACT is a trial combining three flow types: enrichment, single-arm, and biomarker-strategy. This combination has been described in the literature as “discrepant case randomization” (31), “discordant risk randomization” (2), and “discordant test results RCT” (48). Simon refers to this trial as a modified marker-based strategy (33), as only patients for whom the treatment assignment is influenced by biomarker results are randomized.

Staged trial designs are also, in essence, a combination of basic patient flows. For instance, the proposed “two-stage sample-enrichment” design by Liu and colleagues (54) starts with accruing only biomarker-positive patients during the initial stage of the trial. At the end of the first stage, an interim analysis is conducted comparing the outcome of the experimental versus control treatment in biomarker-positives. If the results are not promising for the new treatment, accrual stops and no treatment benefit is claimed. Otherwise, accrual continues with recruiting unselected population. This design is a combination of an enrichment and a traditional flow, conditional on the result of the interim analysis.

Contrariwise, in “adaptive patient enrichment” design (55)—also labeled as “adaptive accrual” (18, 37)—the trial begins with a biomarker-stratified first stage in which it accrues both biomarker-positive and -negative patients. If the results of an interim analysis comparing the outcome of the experimental versus control treatment in biomarker-negatives are not promising, accrual to biomarker-negative subgroup is terminated and the second stage continues as an enrichment trial in biomarker-positive patients until the planned total sample size is reached.

Effects assessed by each category of designs

There are four types of effects we are commonly interested in when designing a biomarker trial: the treatment effect, the biomarker effect, the biomarker by treatment effect, and the strategy effect. These are presented with 8 study questions in Table 2. The treatment effect (experimental vs. control) can be estimated separately for biomarker-positive patients (Q1), for biomarker-negative patients (Q2), and in the overall population (Q3). Single-arm trials do not answer any of these questions, as they lack a control arm to allow comparisons. Enrichment trials recruit biomarker-positive patients and allocate them to experimental or control treatment, thus letting us evaluate the effect of treatment, but only in biomarker-positive patients (Q1; ref. 1). Randomize-all trials recruit patients from the whole spectrum of the biomarker values and allocate them randomly to either of the two treatment options. Therefore, they allow estimation of the treatment effect in biomarker-positives, -negatives, and in the overall population (Q1–3).

Table 2.

List of effects that can be assessed and questions that can be answered by the trials of each design category

Biomarker-strategy
Questions trial can answerSingle-armEnrichmentRandomize-allWith biomarker measurement in the control armWithout biomarker measurement in the control armWith treatment randomization in the control arm
Treatment effects 
 Q1. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in biomarker-positives? — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Indirect ✓ 
 Q2. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in biomarker-negatives? — — ✓ — — ✓ 
 Q3. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in overall study population? — — ✓ — — ✓ 
Biomarker effects 
 Q4. Is the biomarker status associated with the outcome in the standard of care group? (Is the biomarker prognostic?) — — ✓ ✓ ✓ Indirect ✓ 
 Q5. Is the biomarker status associated with the outcome in the experimental treatment group? ✓ — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Biomarker by treatment effect 
 Q6. Is the biomarker status associated with a benefit of experimental treatment? (Is the biomarker is predictive?) — — ✓ — — ✓ 
Strategy effects 
 Q7. How does the biomarker-based treatment strategy compare with the control treatment in the overall study population? — — ✓ Indirect ✓ ✓ ✓ 
 Q8. How does the biomarker-based treatment strategy compare with the experimental treatment in the overall study population? — — ✓ Indirect — — ✓ 
Biomarker-strategy
Questions trial can answerSingle-armEnrichmentRandomize-allWith biomarker measurement in the control armWithout biomarker measurement in the control armWith treatment randomization in the control arm
Treatment effects 
 Q1. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in biomarker-positives? — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Indirect ✓ 
 Q2. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in biomarker-negatives? — — ✓ — — ✓ 
 Q3. How does the experimental treatment compare with the control treatment in overall study population? — — ✓ — — ✓ 
Biomarker effects 
 Q4. Is the biomarker status associated with the outcome in the standard of care group? (Is the biomarker prognostic?) — — ✓ ✓ ✓ Indirect ✓ 
 Q5. Is the biomarker status associated with the outcome in the experimental treatment group? ✓ — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Biomarker by treatment effect 
 Q6. Is the biomarker status associated with a benefit of experimental treatment? (Is the biomarker is predictive?) — — ✓ — — ✓ 
Strategy effects 
 Q7. How does the biomarker-based treatment strategy compare with the control treatment in the overall study population? — — ✓ Indirect ✓ ✓ ✓ 
 Q8. How does the biomarker-based treatment strategy compare with the experimental treatment in the overall study population? — — ✓ Indirect — — ✓ 

To evaluate if a biomarker is prognostic (Q4), one needs to compare the outcome of biomarker-positive and -negative patients on control treatment, a comparison which is possible in randomize-all study designs but not in single-arm or enrichment trials (1, 28). The only effect one can estimate in the single-arm trials is the biomarker effect in the experimental arm, whether biomarker status is associated with the outcome of experimental treatment (Q5).

To assess the predictive capacity of a biomarker (Q6)—the biomarker by treatment effect—one needs to have the outcome of biomarker-positive and -negative patients separately after experimental and control treatments. Randomize-all trials allow such an assessment by providing estimates for all four aforementioned outcomes (1).

In the biomarker-strategy trials, patients are randomized to treatment strategies, instead of treatments. This feature permits direct comparison of the outcomes of a biomarker-based strategy versus those in a strategy of control treatment for all (Q7). Addition of a randomization to the control arm of a biomarker-strategy trial allows direct comparison with a strategy of experimental treatment for all (Q8; ref. 56). With a randomize-all trial, one cannot estimate these effects using randomization properties. By combining marker-positivity rate, outcome of experimental treatment in biomarker-positives and outcome of control treatment in biomarker-negatives, an indirect estimate of strategy effects, can be obtained (57), though it might be biased considering confounding effects of other prognostic factors and it may miss the additional effects of testing, apart from treatment selection (58). In biomarker-strategy designs, there are biomarker-positive and -negative patients who are treated with the control treatment, so one can assess prognostic capacity of the biomarker in all three subtypes. However, the evaluation of biomarker-predictive capacity is only possible when treatment is randomized in the control arm allowing estimation of experimental treatment effect in biomarker-negative patients (1).

This systematic review documented a substantial variability in the labeling of clinical trial designs for evaluating biomarkers for treatment selection in individual patients. We identified more than 300 labels, half of which were unique. In evaluating the heterogeneity in design labels, we used a classification scheme based on patient flow components of the corresponding trial designs. Under each of the four basic patient flow categories, several labels could be categorized, where some labels are completely interchangeable terms. Other designs, while having the same patient flow elements, carried specific objectives or had diverging analysis plans, which authors have labeled differently, to emphasize these distinctive aspects.

Using our patient flow scheme, one would be able to classify biomarker trial designs into a small set of basic categories. This could be useful for identifying similarities between novel designs and existing ones, or to evaluate proposed modifications of existing designs. It could also be helpful in reducing the confusion around the design of biomarker trials and help with standardizing the reporting of biomarker clinical trials. Because the classification is based on patient flow, it is directly connected to the possible comparisons that can be made in the trial and, consequently, the questions that could be potentially answered by the trial.

By comparing the designs in Table 2, a biomarker-strategy design with treatment randomization in the control arm seems a very attractive option, allowing for direct estimation of all biomarker-related effects, yet this feature might come at the cost of a large sample size. Nevertheless, in situations where the biomarker-strategy is complex—having a large number of treatment options or biomarker categories—or when the trial is planned primarily for confirmatory assessment of a specific biomarker-based strategy, a biomarker-strategy trial can be the design of choice. A limitation of biomarker-strategy trials is that assessments are restricted to a prespecified biomarker-treatment combination strategy and they cannot be used for further identification or validation of other biomarkers.

Randomize-all trials also allow assessment of all biomarker-related effects, but provide indirect estimates of strategy effects. An attractive aspect of randomize-all trials is that they allow identification and evaluation of biomarkers that were not specified in the design phase of the trial. Single or multiple biomarkers can be studied and multimarker models can be developed and tested in trials of randomize-all category. If one collects and stores biologic specimens from participants of a randomize-all trial in biobanks, the trial data can be used later to identify or evaluate single or multiple biomarkers, possibly not even known at the time of trial design (59). However, as all analyses that emerge after designing the trial are considered post hoc and exploratory, cross-validation and/or independent validation approaches are required to establish the use of biomarkers.

Enrichment design can be selected when there is a strong prior biologic evidence that the experimental treatment has no effect in biomarker-negative patients (3, 20). Yet, a positive trial does not prove the use of the biomarker because there may exist a positive treatment effect in the unevaluated biomarker-negative patients (1, 3).

Biomarker trials have predominantly been proposed and discussed in the setting of phase III trials in oncology. All categories identified in this review apply when designing a phase III biomarker trial, though some designs have been suggested primarily for a phase II setting. These include randomize-all designs with adaptive randomization, such as the outcome-based trials with Bayesian adaptive randomization (5, 36), as well as some of the designs in the combined category, such as tandem two-step phase II predictor marker evaluation (60), which aim at finding a promising treatment/biomarker pair that can be moved forward to a phase III evaluation.

To our knowledge, this review is the first systematic review of trial designs for evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Several other narrative reviews are available, most often written by experts (1, 2, 33, 35, 53), who commonly have discussed a selected series of biomarker trial designs and used their personally preferred design labels. Yet our review was also not without limitation, which was the shortcoming of our search strategy in the electronic databases. The retrieval of methodologic articles is challenging because no specific keywords are available to distinguish articles that have described or presented a method from those which have just applied that method. Most of the search terms we could use were nonspecific. Even the terms “prognostic” and “predictive” are commonly used by authors in other situations. To compensate for these challenges, we designed our search strategy to be broad and sensitive. We also looked for relevant articles by checking the references and citations of the selected retrieved articles.

Biomarkers are changing the way doctors handle many cancers, but there is still a long way to go before biomarkers reach their full potential in cancer management. With the advent of rapidly growing technologies for measuring new biomarkers, there is a parallel need for validating the clinical use of using such biomarkers for selection treatment of individual patients. Well-designed and properly conducted trials may support the timely introduction of new biomarkers in clinical management, to the benefit of cancer patients.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: P. Tajik, P.M. Bossuyt

Development of methodology: P. Tajik, A.H. Zwinderman, B.W. Mol, P.M. Bossuyt

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): P. Tajik, B.W. Mol, P.M. Bossuyt

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): P. Tajik, A.H. Zwinderman, B.W. Mol, P.M. Bossuyt

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: P. Tajik, A.H. Zwinderman, B.W. Mol, P.M. Bossuyt

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): P. Tajik

Study supervision: P.M. Bossuyt

The authors thank Ms. Faridi van Etten-Jamaludin for her help with developing the search strategy and searching the databases.

Funding for this research was provided by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Hague, the Netherlands (grant number 152002026).

1.
Freidlin
B
,
McShane
LM
,
Korn
EL
. 
Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2010
;
102
:
152
60
.
2.
Buyse
M
,
Michiels
S
,
Sargent
DJ
,
Grothey
A
,
Matheson
A
,
de
GA
. 
Integrating biomarkers in clinical trials
.
Expert Rev Mol Diagn
2011
;
11
:
171
82
.
3.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: one size does not fit all
.
J Biopharm Stat
2009
;
19
:
530
42
.
4.
Seymour
L
,
Ivy
SP
,
Sargent
D
,
Spriggs
D
,
Baker
L
,
Rubinstein
L
, et al
The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
1764
9
.
5.
Ang
MK
,
Tan
SB
,
Lim
WT
. 
Phase II clinical trials in oncology: are we hitting the target?
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
2010
;
10
:
427
38
.
6.
Farley
J
,
Rose
PG
. 
Trial design for evaluation of novel targeted therapies
.
Gynecol Oncol
2010
;
116
:
173
6
.
7.
McShane
LM
,
Hunsberger
S
,
Adjei
AA
. 
Effective incorporation of biomarkers into phase II trials
.
Clin Cancer Res
2009
;
15
:
1898
905
.
8.
Pusztai
L
,
Hess
KR
. 
Clinical trial design for microarray predictive marker discovery and assessment
.
Ann Oncol
2004
;
15
:
1731
7
.
9.
Romond
EH
,
Perez
EA
,
Bryant
J
,
Suman
VJ
,
Geyer
CE
 Jr
,
Davidson
NE
, et al
Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2005
;
353
:
1673
84
.
10.
Ziegler
A
,
Koch
A
,
Krockenberger
K
,
Grosshennig
A
. 
Personalized medicine using DNA biomarkers: a review
.
Hum Genet
2012
;
131
:
1627
38
.
11.
Di
MM
,
Gallo
C
,
De
ME
,
Morabito
A
,
Piccirillo
MC
,
Gridelli
C
, et al
Methodological aspects of lung cancer clinical trials in the era of targeted agents
.
Lung Cancer
2010
;
67
:
127
35
.
12.
Bria
E
,
Di
MM
,
Carlini
P
,
Cuppone
F
,
Giannarelli
D
,
Cognetti
F
, et al
Targeting targeted agents: open issues for clinical trial design
.
J Exp Clin Cancer Res
2009
;
28
:
66
.
13.
Hoering
A
,
Leblanc
M
,
Crowley
JJ
. 
Randomized phase III clinical trial designs for targeted agents
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
4358
67
.
14.
Ferraldeschi
R
,
Attard
G
,
de Bono
JS
. 
Novel strategies to test biological hypotheses in early drug development for advanced prostate cancer
.
Clin Chem
2013
;
59
:
75
84
.
15.
Lai
TL
,
Lavori
PW
,
Shih
MC
,
Sikic
BI
. 
Clinical trial designs for testing biomarker-based personalized therapies
.
Clin Trials
2012
;
9
:
141
54
.
16.
An
MW
,
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
A 2-stage phase II design with direct assignment option in stage II for initial marker validation
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
4225
33
.
17.
Trusheim
MR
,
Burgess
B
,
Hu
SX
,
Long
T
,
Averbuch
SD
,
Flynn
AA
, et al
Quantifying factors for the success of stratified medicine
.
Nat Rev Drug Discov
2011
;
10
:
817
33
.
18.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
4027
34
.
19.
French
B
,
Joo
J
,
Geller
NL
,
Kimmel
SE
,
Rosenberg
Y
,
Anderson
JL
, et al
Statistical design of personalized medicine interventions: the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial
.
Trials
2010
;
11
:
108
.
20.
Maitournam
A
,
Simon
R
. 
On the efficiency of targeted clinical trials
.
Stat Med
2005
;
24
:
329
39
.
21.
Suman
VJ
,
Dueck
A
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Clinical trials of novel and targeted therapies: endpoints, trial design, and analysis
.
Cancer Invest
2008
;
26
:
439
44
.
22.
Bossuyt
PM
,
Lijmer
JG
,
Mol
BW
. 
Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient
.
Lancet
2000
;
356
:
1844
7
.
23.
Beckman
RA
,
Clark
J
,
Chen
C
. 
Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes
.
Nat Rev Drug Discov
2011
;
10
:
735
48
.
24.
Coyle
VM
,
Johnston
PG
. 
Genomic markers for decision making: what is preventing us from using markers?
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2010
;
7
:
90
7
.
25.
Simon
R
. 
Development and validation of biomarker classifiers for treatment selection
.
J Stat Plan Inference
2008
;
138
:
308
20
.
26.
Paik
S
. 
Clinical trial methods to discover and validate predictive markers for treatment response in cancer
.
Biotechnol Annu Rev
2003
;
9
:
259
67
.
27.
Wang
SJ
,
O'Neill
RT
,
Hung
HJ
. 
Statistical considerations in evaluating pharmacogenomics-based clinical effect for confirmatory trials
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
525
36
.
28.
Lee
JJ
,
Xuemin
G
,
Suyu
L
. 
Bayesian adaptive randomization designs for targeted agent development
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
584
96
.
29.
Simon
R
. 
Clinical trials for predictive medicine
.
Stat Med
2012
;
31
:
3031
40
.
30.
Johnson
DR
,
Galanis
E
. 
Incorporation of prognostic and predictive factors into glioma clinical trials
.
Curr Oncol Rep
2013
;
15
:
56
63
.
31.
Buyse
M
. 
Towards validation of statistically reliable biomarkers
.
Eur J Cancer Suppl
2007
;
5
:
89
95
.
32.
Lee
CK
,
Lord
SJ
,
Coates
AS
,
Simes
RJ
. 
Molecular biomarkers to individualise treatment: assessing the evidence
.
Med J Aust
2009
;
190
:
631
6
.
33.
Simon
R
. 
Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology
.
Per Med
2010
;
7
:
33
47
.
34.
Le
TC
,
Kamal
M
,
Tredan
O
,
Delord
JP
,
Campone
M
,
Goncalves
A
, et al
Designs and challenges for personalized medicine studies in oncology: focus on the SHIVA trial
.
Target Oncol
2012
;
7
:
253
65
.
35.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Grothey
A
,
Goetz
MP
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Clinical trial designs for prospective validation of biomarkers
.
Am J Pharmacogenomics
2005
;
5
:
317
25
.
36.
Zhou
X
,
Liu
S
,
Kim
ES
,
Herbst
RS
,
Lee
JJ
. 
Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer–a step toward personalized medicine
.
Clin Trials
2008
;
5
:
181
93
.
37.
Sato
Y
,
Laird
NM
,
Yoshida
T
. 
Biostatistic tools in pharmacogenomics—advances, challenges, potential
.
Curr Pharm Des
2010
;
16
:
2232
40
.
38.
Baker
SG
,
Kramer
BS
,
Sargent
DJ
,
Bonetti
M
. 
Biomarkers, subgroup evaluation, and clinical trial design
.
Discov Med
2012
;
13
:
187
92
.
39.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Predictive biomarker validation in practice: lessons from real trials
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
567
73
.
40.
Jiang
W
,
Freidlin
B
,
Simon
R
. 
Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2007
;
99
:
1036
43
.
41.
Freidlin
B
,
Simon
R
. 
Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
7872
8
.
42.
Freidlin
B
,
Jiang
W
,
Simon
R
. 
The cross-validated adaptive signature design
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
691
8
.
43.
Cappuzzo
F
,
Ciuleanu
T
,
Stelmakh
L
,
Cicenas
S
,
Szczesna
A
,
Juhasz
E
, et al
Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study
.
Lancet Oncol
2010
;
11
:
521
9
.
44.
Freidlin
B
,
Korn
EL
. 
Biomarker-adaptive clinical trial designs
.
Pharmacogenomics
2010
;
11
:
1679
82
.
45.
Young
KY
,
Laird
A
,
Zhou
XH
. 
The efficiency of clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
557
66
.
46.
Fraser
GA
,
Meyer
RM
. 
Biomarkers and the design of clinical trials in cancer
.
Biomark Med
2007
;
1
:
387
97
.
47.
Wang
SJ
. 
Biomarker as a classifier in pharmacogenomics clinical trials: a tribute to 30th anniversary of PSI
.
Pharm Stat
2007
;
6
:
283
96
.
48.
Lijmer
JG
,
Bossuyt
PM
. 
Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2009
;
62
:
364
73
.
49.
Therasse
P
,
Carbonnelle
S
,
Bogaerts
J
. 
Clinical trials design and treatment tailoring: general principles applied to breast cancer research
.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
2006
;
59
:
98
105
.
50.
Stingl Kirchheiner
JC
,
Brockmoller
J
. 
Why, when, and how should pharmacogenetics be applied in clinical studies?: current and future approaches to study designs
.
Clin Pharmacol Ther
2011
;
89
:
198
209
.
51.
Ferrante
di RL
,
Davenport
C
,
Eisinga
A
,
Hyde
C
,
Deeks
JJ
. 
A capture-recapture analysis demonstrated that randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes are rare
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2012
;
65
:
282
7
.
52.
Sargent
D
,
Allegra
C
. 
Issues in clinical trial design for tumor marker studies
.
Semin Oncol
2002
;
29
:
222
30
.
53.
Sargent
DJ
,
Conley
BA
,
Allegra
C
,
Collette
L
. 
Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
2020
7
.
54.
Liu
A
,
Liu
C
,
Li
Q
,
Yu
KF
,
Yuan
VW
. 
A threshold sample-enrichment approach in a clinical trial with heterogeneous subpopulations
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
537
45
.
55.
Wang
SJ
,
Hung
HM
,
O'Neill
RT
. 
Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials
.
Biom J
2009
;
51
:
358
74
.
56.
Freidlin
B
,
McShane
LM
,
Polley
MY
,
Korn
EL
. 
Randomized phase II trial designs with biomarkers
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
3304
9
.
57.
Song
X
,
Pepe
MS
. 
Evaluating markers for selecting a patient's treatment
.
Biometrics
2004
;
60
:
874
83
.
58.
Bossuyt
PM
,
McCaffery
K
. 
Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing
. 
2009 Nov 9
. In:
Medical tests-white paper series [Internet]
.
Rockville (MD)
:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
;
2009-. Available from
: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK49463/.
59.
Tajik
P
,
Bossuyt
PM
. 
Genomic markers to tailor treatments: waiting or initiating?
Hum Genet
2011
;
130
:
15
8
.
60.
Pusztai
L
,
Anderson
K
,
Hess
KR
. 
Pharmacogenomic predictor discovery in phase II clinical trials for breast cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
6080
6
.
61.
Scheibler
F
,
Zumbe
P
,
Janssen
I
,
Viebahn
M
,
Schroer-Gunther
M
,
Grosselfinger
R
, et al
Randomized controlled trials on PET: a systematic review of topics, design, and quality
.
J Nucl Med
2012
;
53
:
1016
25
.
62.
Kelloff
GJ
,
Sigman
CC
. 
Cancer biomarkers: selecting the right drug for the right patient
.
Nat Rev Drug Discov
2012
;
11
:
201
14
.
63.
Karuri
SW
,
Simon
R
. 
A two-stage Bayesian design for co-development of new drugs and companion diagnostics
.
Stat Med
2012
;
31
:
901
14
.
64.
Shi
Q
,
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Predictive biomarkers in colorectal cancer: usage, validation, and design in clinical trials
.
Scand J Gastroenterol
2012
;
47
:
356
62
.
65.
Zheng
G
,
Wu
CO
,
Yang
S
,
Waclawiw
MA
,
DeMets
DL
,
Geller
NL
. 
NHLBI clinical trials workshop: an executive summary
.
Stat Med
2012
;
31
:
2938
43
.
66.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
All-comers versus enrichment design strategy in phase II trials
.
J Thorac Oncol
2011
;
6
:
658
60
.
67.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Design of clinical trials for biomarker research in oncology
.
Clin Investig
2011
;
1
:
1629
36
.
68.
Galanis
E
,
Wu
W
,
Sarkaria
J
,
Chang
SM
,
Colman
H
,
Sargent
D
, et al
Incorporation of biomarker assessment in novel clinical trial designs: personalizing brain tumor treatments
.
Curr Oncol Rep
2011
;
13
:
42
9
.
69.
Simon
R
. 
Clinical trials for predictive medicine: new challenges and paradigms
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
516
24
.
70.
Simon
R
. 
Advances in clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker discovery and validation
.
Current Breast Cancer Reports
2009
;
1
:
216
21
.
71.
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Sargent
DJ
. 
Genomic advances and their impact on clinical trial design
.
Genome Med
2009
;
1
:
69
.
72.
Liu
JP
,
Lin
JR
,
Chow
SC
. 
Inference on treatment effects for targeted clinical trials under enrichment design
.
Pharm Stat
2009
;
8
:
356
70
.
73.
Simon
R
. 
Designs and adaptive analysis plans for pivotal clinical trials of therapeutics and companion diagnostics
.
Expert Opin Med Diagn
2008
;
2
:
721
9
.
74.
Simon
R
. 
The use of genomics in clinical trial design
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
5984
93
.
75.
Ma
BB
,
Britten
CD
,
Siu
LL
. 
Clinical trial designs for targeted agents
.
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am
2002
;
16
:
1287
305
.
76.
European Medicines Agency
. 
Reflection paper on methodological issues associated with pharmacogenomic biomarkers in relation to clinical development and patient selection [Internet].
London
; 
2011
[cited 2012 Jul 3]. Available from:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/07/WC500108672.pdf.
77.
George
SL
. 
Statistical issues in translational cancer research
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
5954
8
.
78.
Van Schaeybroeck
S
,
Allen
WL
,
Turkington
RC
,
Johnston
PG
. 
Implementing prognostic and predictive biomarkers in CRC clinical trials
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2011
;
8
:
222
32
.
79.
Hodgson
DR
,
Wellings
R
,
Harbron
C
. 
Practical perspectives of personalized healthcare in oncology
.
N Biotechnol
2012
;
29
:
656
64
.
80.
Younes
A
,
Berry
DA
. 
From drug discovery to biomarker-driven clinical trials in lymphoma
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2012
;
9
:
643
53
.
81.
Buyse
M
,
Sargent
DJ
,
Grothey
A
,
Matheson
A
,
de
GA
. 
Biomarkers and surrogate end points—the challenge of statistical validation
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2010
;
7
:
309
17
.
82.
Simon
R
,
Wang
SJ
. 
Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases
.
Pharmacogenomics J
2006
;
6
:
166
73
.
83.
Berry
DA
,
Herbst
RS
,
Rubin
EH
. 
Reports from the 2010 Clinical and Translational Cancer Research Think Tank meeting: design strategies for personalized therapy trials
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
638
44
.
84.
Scher
HI
,
Nasso
SF
,
Rubin
EH
,
Simon
R
. 
Adaptive clinical trial designs for simultaneous testing of matched diagnostics and therapeutics
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
6634
40
.
85.
Conley
BA
,
Taube
SE
. 
Prognostic and predictive markers in cancer
.
Dis Markers
2004
;
20
:
35
43
.
86.
Wistuba
II
,
Gelovani
JG
,
Jacoby
JJ
,
Davis
SE
,
Herbst
RS
. 
Methodological and practical challenges for personalized cancer therapies
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2011
;
8
:
135
41
.
87.
Cho
D
,
McDermott
D
,
Atkins
M
. 
Designing clinical trials for kidney cancer based on newly developed prognostic and predictive tools
.
Curr Urol Rep
2006
;
7
:
8
15
.
88.
Jones
CL
,
Holmgren
E
. 
An adaptive Simon two-stage design for phase 2 studies of targeted therapies
.
Contemp Clin Trials
2007
;
28
:
654
61
.
89.
Spira
A
,
Edmiston
KH
. 
Clinical trial design in the age of molecular profiling
.
Methods Mol Biol
2012
;
823
:
19
34
.
90.
White
TJ
,
Clark
AG
,
Broder
S
. 
Genome-based biomarkers for adverse drug effects, patient enrichment and prediction of drug response, and their incorporation into clinical trial design
.
Per Med
2006
;
3
:
177
85
.
91.
Eickhoff
JC
,
Kim
K
,
Beach
J
,
Kolesar
JM
,
Gee
JR
. 
A Bayesian adaptive design with biomarkers for targeted therapies
.
Clin Trials
2010
;
7
:
546
56
.