  Purpose: Two-stage single-arm trial designs are commonly used in phase II
oncology to infer treatment effects for a binary primary outcome (e.g., tumour
response). It is imperative that such studies be designed, analysed, and
reported effectively. However, there is little available evidence on whether
this is the case, particularly for key statistical considerations. We therefore
comprehensively review such trials, examining in particular quality of
reporting. Methods: Published oncology trials that utilised "Simon's two-stage
design" over a 5 year period were identified and reviewed. Articles were
evaluated on whether they reported sufficient design details, such as the
required sample size, and analysis details, such as a confidence interval (CI).
The articles that did not adjust their inference for the incorporation of an
interim analysis were re-analysed to evaluate the impact on their reported
point estimate and CI. Results: Four hundred and twenty five articles that
reported the results of a single treatment arm were included. Of these, 47.5%
provided the five components that ensure design reproducibility. Only 1.2% and
2.1% reported an adjusted point estimate or CI, respectively. Just 55.3% of
trials provided the final stage rejection bound, indicating many trials did not
test the hypothesis the design is constructed to assess. Re-analysis of the
trials suggests that reported point estimates underestimated treatment effects
and that reported CIs were too narrow. Conclusion: Key design details of
two-stage single-arm trials are often unreported. Whilst inference is regularly
performed, it is rarely done so in a way that removes the bias introduced by
the interim analysis. In order to maximise their value, future studies must
improve the way that they are analysed and reported.
