A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Boonstra PS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4565529 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:A rapidly increasing number of Phase I dose-finding studies, and in particular those based on the standard 3+3 design, are being prolonged with the inclusion of dose expansion cohorts (DEC) in order to better characterize the toxicity profiles of experimental agents and to study disease-specific cohorts. These trials consist of two phases: the usual dose escalation phase that aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and the dose expansion phase that accrues additional patients, often with different eligibility criteria, and where additional information is collected. Current protocols do not always specify whether and how the MTD will be updated in light of the new data accumulated from the DEC. In this paper, we propose methods that allow monitoring of safety in the DEC by re-evaluating the MTD in light of additional information. Our working assumption is that, regardless of the design being used for dose escalation, during the DEC we are experimenting in the neighborhood of a target dose with an acceptable rate of toxicity. We refine our initial estimate of the MTD by continuing experimentation in the immediate vicinity of the initial estimate of the MTD. The auxiliary information provided in such an evaluation can include toxicity, pharmacokinetic, efficacy or other endpoints. We consider approaches specifically focused on the aims of DEC that examine efficacy alone or simultaneously with safety and compare the proposed tests via simulations.
| S-EPMC4976787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many clinical trials incorporate stopping rules to terminate early if the clinical question under study can be answered with a high degree of confidence. While common in later-stage trials, these rules are rarely implemented in dose escalation studies, due in part to the relatively smaller sample size of these designs. However, even with a small sample size, this paper shows that easily implementable stopping rules can terminate dose-escalation early with minimal loss to the accuracy of maximum tolerated dose estimation. These stopping rules are developed when the goal is to identify one or two dose levels, as the maximum tolerated dose and co-maximum tolerated dose. In oncology, this latter goal is frequently considered when the study includes dose-expansion cohorts, which are used to further estimate and compare the safety and efficacy of one or two dose levels. As study protocols do not typically halt accrual between escalation and expansion, early termination is of clinical importance as it either allows for additional patients to be treated as part of the dose expansion cohort to obtain more precise estimates of the study endpoints or allows for an overall reduction in the total sample size.
| S-EPMC9400040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhase I cancer trials increasingly incorporate dose-expansion cohorts (DECs), reflecting a growing demand to acquire more information about investigational drugs. Protocols commonly fail to provide a sample-size justification or analysis plan for the DEC. In this study, we develop a statistical framework for the design of DECs.MethodsWe assume the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for the investigational drug has been identified in the dose-escalation stage of the trial. We use the 80% lower confidence bound and the 90% upper confidence bound for the response and toxicity rates, respectively, as decision thresholds for the dose-expansion stage. We calculate the operating characteristics with reference to prespecified minimum effective response rates and maximum safe DLT rates.ResultsWe apply our framework to specify a system of DEC plans. The design comprises three components: 1) the number of subjects enrolled at the MTD, 2) the minimum number of responses necessary to indicate provisional drug efficacy, and 3) the maximum number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) permitted to indicate drug safety. We demonstrate our method in an application to a cancer immunotherapy trial.ConclusionsOur simple and practical tool enables creation of DEC designs that appropriately address the safety and efficacy objectives of the trial.
| S-EPMC6108930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Regulatory agencies and others have expressed concern about the uncritical use of dose expansion cohorts (DECs) in phase I oncology trials. Nonetheless, by several metrics-prevalence, size, and number-their popularity is increasing. Although early efficacy estimation in defined populations is a common primary endpoint of DECs, the types of designs best equipped to identify efficacy signals have not been established. Methods:We conducted a simulation study of six phase I design templates with multiple DECs: three dose-assignment/adjustment mechanisms multiplied by two analytic approaches for estimating efficacy after the trial is complete. We also investigated the effect of sample size and interim futility analysis on trial performance. Identifying populations in which the treatment is efficacious (true positives) and weeding out inefficacious treatment/populations (true negatives) are competing goals in these trials. Thus, we estimated true and false positive rates for each design. Results:Adaptively updating the MTD during the DEC improved true positive rates by 8-43% compared with fixing the dose during the DEC phase while maintaining false positive rates. Inclusion of an interim futility analysis decreased the number of patients treated under inefficacious DECs without hurting performance. Conclusion:A substantial gain in efficiency is obtainable using a design template that statistically models toxicity and efficacy against dose level during expansion. Design choices for dose expansion should be motivated by and based upon expected performance. Similar to the common practice in single-arm phase II trials, cohort sample sizes should be justified with respect to their primary aim and include interim analyses to allow for early stopping.
| S-EPMC5834117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Evaluate the association between the use of phase I expansion cohorts (ECs) and drug performance in phase II as well as time to approval by the FDA.Experimental Design: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE for single-agent dose-finding adult oncology phase I trials published in 2006 to 2011 and subsequent phase II trials. Successful phase II trials were those that met their primary endpoints. Dates of approval were obtained from the Drugs@FDA website in April 2014. A logistic regression model was used to determine the associations between variables and success in phase II.Results: We identified 533 phase I trials evaluating 381 drugs; 112 drugs had at least one phase I trial with an expansion cohort. Phase I trials with expansion cohorts of two to 20 patients were associated with a higher rate of successful phase II trials than those with no expansion cohort [48% vs. 27%; OR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.0; P = 0.037]. Phase II success rates were the same for expansion cohort with two to 20 and more than 20 patients (48% vs. 52%). Other positive associations were disease-specific trials (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = 0.037), industry sponsorship (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7; P = 0.0024), and response rate of 6% to 20% (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.6-5.2; P = 0.0007). Drugs tested in phase I trials with expansion cohorts had a higher rate of 5-year approval (19% vs. 5%; HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-8.8; P < 0.001).Conclusions: The use of expansion cohorts in phase I trials was associated with success of subsequent phase II trials. However, confounders may play a role in this association. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4020-6. ©2017 AACR.
| S-EPMC5540786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Capmatinib is an oral, ATP-competitive, and highly potent, type 1b MET inhibitor. Herein, we report phase 1 dose-escalation results for capmatinib in advanced MET-positive solid tumor patients and dose expansion in advanced non-lung tumors. Capmatinib was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile across all explored doses. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) occurred at 200 mg twice daily (bid), 250 mg bid, and 450 mg bid capsules; however, no DLT were reported at 600 mg bid (capsules). Capmatinib tablets at 400 mg bid had comparable tolerability and exposure to that of 600 mg bid capsules. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached; recommended phase 2 dose was 400 mg bid tablets/600 mg bid capsules; at this dose, Ctrough >EC90 (90% inhibition of c-MET phosphorylation in animal models) is expected to be achieved and maintained. Among the dose-expansion patients (N = 38), best overall response across all cohorts was stable disease (gastric cancer 22%, hepatocellular carcinoma 46%, other indications 28%); two other indication patients with gene copy number (GCN) ?6 achieved substantial tumor reduction. Near-complete immunohistochemically determined phospho-MET inhibition (H-score = 2) was shown following capmatinib 450 mg bid capsule in paired biopsies obtained from one advanced colorectal cancer patient. Incidence of high-level MET GCN (GCN ?6) and MET-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3+) tumors in the expansion cohorts was 8% and 13%, respectively; no MET mutations were observed. Thus, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of capmatinib was 600 mg bid capsule/400 mg bid tablet. Capmatinib was well tolerated and showed antitumor activity and acceptable safety profile at the RP2D. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01324479).
| S-EPMC7004521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dose-finding methods aiming at identifying an optimal dose of a treatment with a given schedule may be at a risk of misidentifying the best treatment for patients. In this article we propose a phase I/II clinical trial design to find the optimal dose-schedule combination. We define schedule as the method and timing of administration of a given total dose in a treatment cycle. We propose a Bayesian dynamic model for the joint effects of dose and schedule. The proposed model allows us to borrow strength across dose-schedule combinations without making overly restrictive assumptions on the ordering pattern of the schedule effects. We develop a dose-schedule-finding algorithm to sequentially allocate patients to a desirable dose-schedule combination, and select an optimal combination at the end of the trial. We apply the proposed design to a phase I/II clinical trial of a γ-secretase inhibitor in patients with refractory metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours, and examine the operating characteristics of the design through simulations.
| S-EPMC4747255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClassical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD.MethodsWe performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected.ResultsWe retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design.ConclusionsIn practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity.
| S-EPMC7805102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We focus on Phase I dose finding studies as they are currently undertaken. The design and analysis of these trials have changed over the last years and, in particular, it is now rare for a Phase I study to not include one or more dose-expansion cohorts (DEC). It is common to see DEC involving several hundred patients, building on an initial dose escalation study that may have no >20 to 30 patients. There has been recent focus by researchers on the design of DEC and the analysis of DEC data. It is reasonable to explicitly account for the uncertainty in the estimation of the MTD, the dose upon which the whole of the DEC is currently based. In this paper, we focus on the dose escalation phase prior to the DEC, with the purpose of adapting it to the needs of DEC. Specifically, before beginning the DEC phase, we need to identify those dose levels that will be taken into the DEC. We define a useful concept for this purpose, the co-MTD, and the results support that the estimated MTD and co-MTD contain the true MTD with high probability. We also provide stopping rules for when the data support that the dose escalation can end and the dose expansion can begin. Simulated trials support the use of the proposed approach and provide additional information on how this approach compares with current practice.
| S-EPMC5266504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDual inhibition of PD-1/PD-L1 and TGF-β pathways is a rational therapeutic strategy for malignancies. SHR-1701 is a new bifunctional fusion protein composed of a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1 fused with the extracellular domain of TGF-β receptor II. This first-in-human trial aimed to assess SHR-1701 in pretreated advanced solid tumors and find the population who could benefit from SHR-1701.MethodsThis was a dose-escalation, dose-expansion, and clinical-expansion phase 1 study. Dose escalation was initiated by accelerated titration (1 mg/kg q3w; intravenous infusion) and then switched to a 3+3 scheme (3, 10, 20, and 30 mg/kg q3w and 30 mg/kg q2w), followed by dose expansion at 10, 20, and 30 mg/kg q3w and 30 mg/kg q2w. The primary endpoints of the dose-escalation and dose-expansion parts were the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. In the clinical-expansion part, selected tumors were enrolled to receive SHR-1701 at the recommended dose, with a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate (ORR).ResultsIn total, 171 patients were enrolled (dose-escalation: n=17; dose-expansion, n=33; clinical-expansion, n=121). In the dose-escalation part, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. SHR-1701 showed a linear dose-exposure relationship and the highest ORR at 30 mg/kg every 3 weeks, without obviously aggravated toxicities across doses in the dose-escalation and dose-expansion parts. Combined, 30 mg/kg every 3 weeks was determined as the recommended phase 2 dose. In the clinical-expansion part, SHR-1701 showed the most favorable efficacy in the gastric cancer cohort, with an ORR of 20.0% (7/35; 95% CI, 8.4-36.9) and a 12-month overall survival rate of 54.5% (95% CI, 29.5-73.9). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 37 of 171 patients (22%), mainly including increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (4%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (3%), anemia (3%), hyponatremia (3%), and rash (2%). Generally, patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or pSMAD2 histochemical score ≥235 had numerically higher ORR.ConclusionsSHR-1701 showed an acceptable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity in pretreated advanced solid tumors, especially in gastric cancer, establishing the foundation for further exploration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03710265.
| S-EPMC9594927 | biostudies-literature