{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019450033534540577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006706908115358819, 'mean_word_length': 4.968, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Early Efficacy Endpoints for Proof-of-Concept Trials

A Phase II proof-of-concept (POC) trial usually uses an early efficacy endpoint other than a clinical endpoint as the primary endpoint. Because of the advancement in bioscience and technology, which has yielded a number of new surrogate biomarkers, drug developers often have more candidate endpoints to choose from than they can handle. As a result, selection of endpoint and its effect size as well as choice of type I/II error rates are often at the center of heated debates in design of POC trials. While optimization of the trade-off between benefit and cost is the implicit objective in such a decision-making process, it is seldom explicitly accounted for in practice. In this research note, motivated by real examples from the oncology field, we provide practical measures for evaluation of early efficacy endpoints (E4) for POC trials. We further provide optimal design strategies for POC trials that include optimal Go–No Go decision criteria for initiation of Phase III and optimal resource allocation strategies for conducting multiple POC trials in a portfolio under fixed resources. Although oncology is used for illustration purpose, the same idea developed in this research note also applies to similar situations in other therapeutic areas or in early-stage drug development in that a Go–No Go decision has to rely on limited data from an early efficacy endpoint and cost-effectiveness is the main concern.