Abstract
Prospective randomized clinical trials addressing biomarkers are time consuming and costly, but are necessary for regulatory agencies to approve new therapies with predictive biomarkers. For this reason, recently, there have been many discussions and proposals of various trial designs and comparisons of their efficiency in the literature. We compare statistical efficiencies between the marker-stratified design and the marker-based precision medicine design regarding testing/estimating 4 hypotheses/parameters of clinical interest, namely, treatment effects in each marker-positive and marker-negative cohorts, marker-by-treatment interaction, and the marker's clinical utility. As may be expected, the stratified design is more efficient than the precision medicine design. However, it is perhaps surprising to find out how low the relative efficiency can be for the precision medicine design. We quantify the relative efficiency as a function of design factors including the marker-positive prevalence rate, marker assay and classification sensitivity and specificity, and the treatment randomization ratio. It is interesting to examine the trends of the relative efficiency with these design parameters in testing different hypotheses. We advocate to use the stratified design over the precision medicine design in clinical trials with predictive biomarkers.