The main goal of a Phase II clinical trial is to decide, whether a particular therapeutic regimen is effective enough to warrant further study. The hypothesis tested by Fleming's Phase II design (Fleming, 1982) is [Formula: see text] versus [Formula: see text], with level [Formula: see text] and with a power [Formula: see text] at [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is chosen to represent the response probability achievable with standard treatment and [Formula: see text] is chosen such that the difference [Formula: see text] represents a targeted improvement with the new treatment. This hypothesis creates a misinterpretation mainly among clinicians that rejection of the null hypothesis is tantamount to accepting the alternative, and vice versa. As mentioned by Storer (1992), this introduces ambiguity in the evaluation of type I and II errors and the choice of the appropriate decision at the end of the study. Instead of testing this hypothesis, an alternative class of designs is proposed in which two hypotheses are tested sequentially. The hypothesis [Formula: see text] versus [Formula: see text] is tested first. If this null hypothesis is rejected, the hypothesis [Formula: see text] versus [Formula: see text] is tested next, in order to examine whether the therapy is effective enough to consider further testing in a Phase III study. For the derivation of the proposed design the exact binomial distribution is used to calculate the decision cut-points. The optimal design parameters are chosen, so as to minimize the average sample number (ASN) under specific upper bounds for error levels. The optimal values for the design were found using a simulated annealing method.
Keywords: Clinical trials; Multistage; Phase II trials; Sequential testing.