Steffen Ventz

BRCA1 Recruitment to Transcriptional Pause Sites Is Required for R-Loop-Driven DNA Damage Repair

Summary The mechanisms contributing to transcription-associated genomic instability are both complex and incompletely understood. Although R-loops are normal transcriptional intermediates, they are also associated with genomic instability. Here, we show that BRCA1 is recruited to R-loops that form normally over a subset of transcription termination regions. There it mediates the recruitment of a specific, physiological binding partner, senataxin (SETX). Disruption of this complex led to R-loop-driven DNA damage at those loci as reflected by adjacent γ-H2AX accumulation and ssDNA breaks within the untranscribed strand of relevant R-loop structures. Genome-wide analysis revealed widespread BRCA1 binding enrichment at R-loop-rich termination regions (TRs) of actively transcribed genes. Strikingly, within some of these genes in BRCA1 null breast tumors, there are specific insertion/deletion mutations located close to R-loop-mediated BRCA1 binding sites within TRs. Thus, BRCA1/SETX complexes support a DNA repair mechanism that addresses R-loop-based DNA damage at transcriptional pause sites.

Bayesian designs and the control of frequentist characteristics: A practical solution

Frequentist concepts, such as the control of the type I error or the false discovery rate, are well established in the medical literature and often required by regulators. Most Bayesian designs are defined without explicit considerations of frequentist characteristics. Once the Bayesian design is structured, statisticians use simulations and adjust tuning parameters to comply with a set of targeted operating characteristics. These adjustments affect the use of prior information and utility functions. Here we consider a Bayesian decision theoretic approach for experimental designs with explicit frequentist requisites. We define optimal designs under a set of constraints required by a regulator. Our approach combines the use of interpretable utility functions with frequentist criteria, and selects an optimal design that satisfies a set of required operating characteristics. We illustrate the approach using a group-sequential multi-arm Phase II trial and a bridging trial.

Bayesian response-adaptive designs for basket trials

We develop a general class of response-adaptive Bayesian designs using hierarchical models, and provide open source software to implement them. Our work is motivated by recent master protocols in oncology, where several treatments are investigated simultaneously in one or multiple disease types, and treatment efficacy is expected to vary across biomarker-defined subpopulations. Adaptive trials such as I-SPY-2 (Barker et al., 2009) and BATTLE (Zhou et al., 2008) are special cases within our framework. We discuss the application of our adaptive scheme to two distinct research goals. The first is to identify a biomarker subpopulation for which a therapy shows evidence of treatment efficacy, and to exclude other subpopulations for which such evidence does not exist. This leads to a subpopulation-finding design. The second is to identify, within biomarker-defined subpopulations, a set of cancer types for which an experimental therapy is superior to the standard-of-care. This goal leads to a subpopulation-stratified design. Using simulations constructed to faithfully represent ongoing cancer sequencing projects, we quantify the potential gains of our proposed designs relative to conventional non-adaptive designs.

A Bayesian response-adaptive trial in tuberculosis: The endTB trial:

Purpose: To evaluate the use of Bayesian adaptive randomization for clinical trials of new treatments for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Methods: We built a response-adaptive randomization procedure, adapting on two preliminary outcomes for tuberculosis patients in a trial with five experimental regimens and a control arm. The primary study outcome is treatment success after 73 weeks from randomization; preliminary responses are culture conversion at 8 weeks and treatment success at 39 weeks. We compared the adaptive randomization design with balanced randomization using hypothetical scenarios. Results: When we compare the statistical power under adaptive randomization and non-adaptive designs, under several hypothetical scenarios we observe that adaptive randomization requires fewer patients than non-adaptive designs. Moreover, adaptive randomization consistently allocates more participants to effective arm(s). We also show that these advantages are limited to scenarios consistent with the assumptions used to develop the adaptive randomization algorithm. Conclusion: Given the objective of evaluating several new therapeutic regimens in a timely fashion, Bayesian response-adaptive designs are attractive for tuberculosis trials. This approach tends to increase allocation to the effective regimens.

A Bayesian Method for Detecting Pairwise Associations in Compositional Data

Compositional data consist of vectors of proportions normalized to a constant sum from a basis of unobserved counts. The sum constraint makes inference on correlations between unconstrained features challenging due to the information loss from normalization. However, such correlations are of long-standing interest in fields including ecology. We propose a novel Bayesian framework (BAnOCC: Bayesian Analysis of Compositional Covariance) to estimate a sparse precision matrix through a LASSO prior. The resulting posterior, generated by MCMC sampling, allows uncertainty quantification of any function of the precision matrix, including the correlation matrix. We also use a first-order Taylor expansion to approximate the transformation from the unobserved counts to the composition in order to investigate what characteristics of the unobserved counts can make the correlations more or less difficult to infer. On simulated datasets, we show that BAnOCC infers the true network as well as previous methods while offering the advantage of posterior inference. Larger and more realistic simulated datasets further showed that BAnOCC performs well as measured by type I and type II error rates. Finally, we apply BAnOCC to a microbial ecology dataset from the Human Microbiome Project, which in addition to reproducing established ecological results revealed unique, competition-based roles for Proteobacteria in multiple distinct habitats.

The clinical trials landscape for glioblastoma: is it adequate to develop new treatments?

Background There have been few treatment advances for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) despite increasing scientific understanding of the disease. While factors such as intrinsic tumor biology and drug delivery are challenges to developing efficacious therapies, it is unclear whether the current clinical trial landscape is optimally evaluating new therapies and biomarkers. Methods We queried ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional clinical trials for patients with GBM initiated between January 2005 and December 2016 and abstracted data regarding phase, status, start and end dates, testing locations, endpoints, experimental interventions, sample size, clinical presentation/indication, and design to better understand the clinical trials landscape. Results Only approximately 8%-11% of patients with newly diagnosed GBM enroll on clinical trials with a similar estimate for all patients with GBM. Trial duration was similar across phases with median time to completion between 3 and 4 years. While 93% of clinical trials were in phases I-II, 26% of the overall clinical trial patient population was enrolled on phase III studies. Of the 8 completed phase III trials, only 1 reported positive results. Although 58% of the phase III trials were supported by phase II data with a similar endpoint, only 25% of these phase II trials were randomized. Conclusions The clinical trials landscape for GBM is characterized by long development times, inadequate dissemination of information, suboptimal go/no-go decision making, and low patient participation.

Designing Clinical Trials That Accept New Arms: An Example in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose The majority of randomized oncology trials are two-arm studies that test the efficacy of new therapies against a standard of care, thereby assigning a large proportion of patients to nonexperimental therapies. In contrast, multiarm studies efficiently share a common control arm while evaluating multiple experimental therapies. A major bottleneck for traditional multiarm trials is the requirement that all therapies-often drugs from different companies-have to be available at the same time when the trial starts. We evaluate the potential gains of a platform design-the rolling-arms design-that adds and removes arms on a rolling basis. Methods We define the rolling-arms design with the goal of minimizing the complexity of random assignment and data analyses of a platform trial. We then evaluate its potential advantages in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Multiple pharmaceutical companies currently test CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with letrozole in independent two-arm trials. We conducted a simulation study to quantify the reduction in sample size, number of patients treated with the standard of care, and the average time to treatment discovery if these therapies had been tested in a rolling-arms trial. Results A rolling-arms platform design with two to five experimental treatments can reduce the overall sample size requirement by up to 30% compared with standard two-arm studies. It assigns up to 60% fewer patients to the control arm compared with five independent trials that test distinct treatments. Moreover, under realistic scenarios, effective experimental treatments are discovered up to 15 months earlier compared with separate two-arm trials. Conclusion The rolling-arms platform design is applicable to a broad variety of diseases, and under realistic scenarios, it is substantially more efficient than standard two-arm randomized trials.

Bayesian adaptive randomization in a clinical trial to identify new regimens for MDR-TB: the endTB trial

BACKGROUND Evidence-based optimization of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), including integration of new drugs, is urgent. Such optimization would benefit from efficient trial designs requiring fewer patients. Implementation of such innovative designs could accelerate improvements in and access to MDR-TB treatment. OBJECTIVE To describe the application, advantages, and challenges of Bayesian adaptive randomization in a Phase III non-inferiority trial of MDR-TB treatment. DESIGN endTB is the first Phase III non-inferiority trial of MDR-TB treatment to use Bayesian adaptive randomization. METHODS We present a simulation study with assumptions for treatment response at 8, 39, and 73 weeks after randomization, on which sample size calculations are based. We show differences between Bayesian adaptive randomization and balanced randomization designs in sample size and number of patients exposed to ineffective regimens. RESULTS With 750 participants, 27% fewer than required by balanced randomization, the study had 80% power to detect up to two (of five) novel treatment regimens that are non-inferior (margin 12%) to the control (70% estimated efficacy) at 73 weeks post randomization. Comparing Bayesian adaptive randomization to balanced randomization, up to 25% more participants would receive non-inferior regimens. CONCLUSION Bayesian adaptive randomization may expose fewer participants to ineffective treatments and enhance the efficiency of MDR-TB treatment trials.

Adding experimental arms to platform clinical trials: randomization procedures and interim analyses

Multi-arm clinical trials use a single control arm to evaluate multiple experimental treatments. In most cases this feature makes multi-arm studies considerably more efficient than two-arm studies. A bottleneck for implementation of a multi-arm trial is the requirement that all experimental treatments have to be available at the enrollment of the first patient. New drugs are rarely at the same stage of development. These limitations motivate our study of statistical methods for adding new experimental arms after a clinical trial has started enrolling patients. We consider both balanced and outcome-adaptive randomization methods for experimental designs that allow investigators to add new arms, discuss their application in a tuberculosis trial, and evaluate the proposed designs using a set of realistic simulation scenarios. Our comparisons include two-arm studies, multi-arm studies, and the proposed class of designs in which new experimental arms are added to the trial at different time points.

Bayesian Uncertainty Directed Trial Designs

ABSTRACT Most Bayesian response-adaptive designs unbalance randomization rates toward the most promising arms with the goal of increasing the number of positive treatment outcomes during the study, even though the primary aim of the trial is different. We discuss Bayesian uncertainty directed designs (BUD), a class of Bayesian designs in which the investigator specifies an information measure tailored to the experiment. All decisions during the trial are selected to optimize the available information at the end of the study. The approach can be applied to several designs, ranging from early stage multi-arm trials to biomarker-driven and multi-endpoint studies. We discuss the asymptotic limit of the patient allocation proportion to treatments, and illustrate the finite-sample operating characteristics of BUD designs through examples, including multi-arm trials, biomarker-stratified trials, and trials with multiple co-primary endpoints. Supplementary materials for this article, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work, are available as an online supplement.