← Clinical Trial Results
Advanced Malignancies Phase 1 Open-label NCT04186637

NEON-1: Complete Statistical Analysis of ALPN-202 in Advanced Malignancies

A statistical review of the phase 1 NEON-1 study evaluating ALPN-202 in subjects with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma, including trial design, endpoint methodology, and interpretation of the registered analysis plan.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04186637
Scope of this record

This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record.

1. Trial at a Glance

NEON-1 was a phase 1, open-label, single-group study evaluating ALPN-202 in subjects with advanced malignancies.

62
Enrollment
1
Study Arm
Phase 1
Trial Phase
2020-06-02
Start Date
FeatureNEON-1
ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT04186637
Study titleAn Open-label Study of ALPN-202 in Subjects With Advanced Malignancies
StatusTERMINATED
ConditionAdvanced Solid Tumor; Lymphoma
SponsorAlpine Immune Sciences, Inc.
Sponsor typeINDUSTRY
InterventionALPN-202 (drug)

2. Clinical Question

The central clinical question was whether ALPN-202 could be evaluated in subjects with advanced malignancies through a phase 1 treatment study focused on safety assessment.

Population

Subjects with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma.

Intervention

ALPN-202.

Comparator

No comparator arm was used.

Primary question

The primary endpoint assessed adverse events associated with study drug exposure.

3. Trial Design

Allocation

Single group.

Masking

None.

Primary purpose

Treatment.

Number of arms

1.

4. Endpoints

EndpointDefinitionTime Frame
Adverse EventsType, incidence, and severity of adverse events as assessed by CTCAEUp to 30 days after last dose of study drug

5. Planned Analysis

The registry identifies adverse events as the primary endpoint. No posted statistical analyses are available in the ClinicalTrials.gov record.

For a phase 1 safety endpoint, analysis generally focuses on descriptive summaries of observed events, including event type, incidence, and severity classification. Because this study uses a single-group design, interpretation centers on characterization of safety observations rather than comparison of randomized treatment effects.

6. Statistical Methodology

Descriptive safety analysis

Adverse event endpoints are commonly summarized using counts and proportions of participants experiencing events. Severity grading frameworks such as CTCAE provide a standardized approach for describing toxicity intensity across participants.

Conceptual safety summary
Number of participants with an adverse event ÷ Total participants evaluated

This type of measure describes observed event frequency within the study population. It does not estimate comparative treatment benefit because there is no comparator group.

Single-arm study interpretation

Single-group phase 1 studies are designed differently from randomized comparative trials. Without a control group, observed events cannot be separated statistically into treatment-related effects versus background disease, prior therapy, or other clinical factors without additional contextual information.

7. Statistical Methods Explained

Why was a single-group design used?

Early-phase studies commonly use single-group designs when the primary objective is initial evaluation of a treatment rather than comparison against another intervention.

What does CTCAE assessment contribute?

CTCAE provides standardized terminology and severity grading so adverse events can be consistently classified.

Why are adverse events different from efficacy endpoints?

Safety endpoints describe observed tolerability and toxicity patterns. They do not directly measure whether a treatment improves disease outcomes.

Why is there no hazard ratio or treatment effect estimate?

A hazard ratio compares event rates between groups. NEON-1 does not include a comparator arm, so comparative effect estimates are not part of the registered design.

Why is sample size interpreted differently in phase 1 studies?

Phase 1 enrollment is generally intended to characterize early safety findings and guide further development rather than provide definitive comparative efficacy conclusions.

8. Limitations

9. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

NEON-1 illustrates several important principles in early clinical development.

ConceptHow it appears in NEON-1
Phase 1 methodologyEarly evaluation of a treatment in advanced malignancies
Safety analysisAdverse events assessed by CTCAE
Single-arm designNo randomized comparator group
Descriptive statisticsSafety endpoints are typically summarized by observed frequency and severity
Interpretation limitsObserved findings require appropriate context without randomized comparison

10. Sources