Abstract:BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating experimental treatments but often require large sample sizes. Single-arm trials require smaller sample sizes but are subject to bias when using historical control data for comparative inferences. This article presents a Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design that exploits historical control data to create a hybrid of a single-arm trial and a randomized controlled trial.METHODS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design has two stages. In stage 1, a prespecified number of patients are enrolled in a single arm given the experimental treatment. Based on the stage 1 data, applying propensity score matching and Bayesian posterior prediction methods, the usefulness of the historical control data for identifying a pseudo sample of matched synthetic-control patients for making comparative inferences is evaluated. If a sufficient number of synthetic controls can be identified, the single-arm trial is continued. If not, the trial is switched to a randomized controlled trial. The performance of The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design is evaluated by computer simulation.RESULTS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design achieves power and unbiasedness similar to a randomized controlled trial but on average requires a much smaller sample size, provided that the historical control data patients are sufficiently comparable to the trial patients so that a good number of matched controls can be identified in the historical control data. Compared to a single-arm trial, The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design yields much higher power and much smaller bias.CONCLUSION:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design provides a useful tool for exploiting historical control data to improve the efficiency of single-arm phase II clinical trials, while addressing the problem of bias when comparing trial results to historical control data. The proposed design achieves power similar to a randomized controlled trial but may require a substantially smaller sample size.

Partial Ordering Bayesian Logistic Regression Model for Phase I Combination Trials and Computationally Efficient Approach to Operational Prior Specification

Phase I Trial Design for Drug Combinations with Bayesian Model Averaging.

Bayesian Model Averaging for Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Methods

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

BOP2: Bayesian Optimal Design for Phase II Clinical Trials with Simple and Complex Endpoints.

A Bayesian phase I/II platform design for co-developing drug combination therapies for multiple indications

Using an Interaction Parameter in Model-Based Phase I Trials for Combination Treatments? A Simulation Study

A Bayesian Platform Trial Design to Simultaneously Evaluate Multiple Drugs in Multiple Indications with Mixed Endpoints.

Bayesian Optimal Phase II Designs with Dual‐criterion Decision Making

Bayesian Optimal Phase II Design for Randomized Clinical Trials

Principled Drug-Drug Interaction Terms for Bayesian Logistic Regression Models of Drug Safety in Oncology Phase I Combination Trials

Statistical Tutorial for Using Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) Design for Phase I Single-Agent and Drug-Combination Trials

An Adaptive Trial Design to Optimize Dose-Schedule Regimes with Delayed Outcomes

ComPAS: A Bayesian Drug Combination Platform Trial Design with Adaptive Shrinkage

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

A Bayesian Phase II Proof-of-concept Design for Clinical Trials with Longitudinal Endpoints.

A Bayesian Dose Finding Design for Oncology Clinical Trials of Combinational Biological Agents

Bayesian Phase II Adaptive Randomization by Jointly Modeling Time-to-event Efficacy and Binary Toxicity

Bayesian Dose Finding by Jointly Modelling Toxicity and Efficacy As Time-To-Event Outcomes

A Phase I-II Basket Trial Design to Optimize Dose-Schedule Regimes Based on Delayed Outcomes.