Three-outcome designs for external pilot trials with progression criteria.

Background: Whether or not to progress from a pilot study to a definitive trial is often guided by pre-specified quantitative progression criteria with three possible outcomes. Although the choice of these progression criteria will help to determine the statistical properties of the pilot trial, there is a lack of research examining how they, or the pilot sample size, should be determined.

Methods: We review three-outcome trial designs originally proposed in the phase II oncology setting and extend these to the case of external pilots, proposing a unified framework based on univariate hypothesis tests and the control of frequentist error rates. We apply this framework to an example and compare against a simple two-outcome alternative.

Results: We find that three-outcome designs can be used in the pilot setting, although they are not generally more efficient than simpler two-outcome alternatives. We show that three-outcome designs can help allow for other sources of information or other stakeholders to feed into progression decisions in the event of a borderline result, but this will come at the cost of a larger pilot sample size than the two-outcome case. We also show that three-outcome designs can be used to allow adjustments to be made to the intervention or trial design before commencing the definitive trial, providing the effect of the adjustment can be accurately predicted at the pilot design stage. An R package, tout, is provided to optimise progression criteria and pilot sample size.

Conclusions: The proposed three-outcome framework provides a way to optimise pilot trial progression criteria and sample size in a way that leads to desired operating characteristics. It can be applied whether or not an adjustment following the pilot trial is anticipated, but will generally lead to larger sample size requirements than simpler two-outcome alternatives.