Abstract: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. (C) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta‐analysis

Dynamically borrowing strength from another study through shrinkage estimation

Meta‐Analysis of Studies with Missing Data

Assessing efficacy in important subgroups in confirmatory trials: An example using Bayesian dynamic borrowing

Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?

Predictive distributions for between‐study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta‐analysis

Comparative Study of Bayesian Information Borrowing Methods in Oncology Clinical Trials

Covariate heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: criteria for deciding between meta‐regression and individual patient data

BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS

A Two-Stage Method for Extending Inferences from a Collection of Trials

Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 1: Two‐stage methods

Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases

Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials

Simulating and reporting frequentist operating characteristics of clinical trials that borrow external information

Borrowing historical information to improve phase I clinical trials using meta-analytic-predictive priors

How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?

A Bayesian Bias-Adjusted Random-Effects Model for Synthesizing Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.

Random‐effects meta‐analysis of few studies involving rare events

Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases

Incorporating External Data into the Analysis of Clinical Trials via Bayesian Additive Regression Trees