Practical designs for Phase I combination studies in oncology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wages NA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4720553 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Practical designs for Phase I combination studies in oncology.
Wages Nolan A NA Ivanova Anastasia A Marchenko Olga O
Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics 20160101 1
Phase I trials evaluating the safety of multidrug combinations are becoming more common in oncology. Despite the emergence of novel methodology in the area, it is rare that innovative approaches are used in practice. In this article, we review three methods for Phase I combination studies that are easy to understand and straightforward to implement. We demonstrate the operating characteristics of the designs through illustration in a single trial, as well as through extensive simulation studies, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite numerous innovative designs having been published for phase I drug-combination dose finding trials, their use in real applications is rather limited. As a working group under the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section, our goal is to identify the unique challenges associated with drug combination, share industry's experiences with combination trials, and investigate the pros and cons of the existing designs. Toward this goal, we review seven existing designs and distinguish them based on the criterion of whether their primary objectives are to find a single maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the MTD contour (i.e., multiple MTDs). Numerical studies, based on either industry-specified fixed scenarios or randomly generated scenarios, are performed to assess their relative accuracy, safety, and ease of implementation. We show that the algorithm-based 3+3 design has poor performance and often fails to find the MTD. The performance of model-based combination trial designs is mixed: some demonstrate high accuracy of finding the MTD but poor safety, while others are safe but with compromised identification accuracy. In comparison, the model-assisted designs, such as BOIN and waterfall designs, have competitive and balanced performance in the accuracy of MTD identification and patient safety, and are also simple to implement, thus offering an attractive approach to designing phase I drug-combination trials. By taking into consideration the design's operating characteristics, ease of implementation and regulation, the need for advanced infrastructures, as well as the risk of regulatory acceptance, our paper offers practical guidance on the selection of a suitable dose-finding approach for designing future combination trials.
| S-EPMC10237505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about the relative performance of competing model-based dose-finding methods for combination phase I trials. In this study, we focused on five model-based dose-finding methods that have been recently developed. We compared the recommendation rates for true maximum-tolerated dose combinations (MTDCs) and over-dose combinations among these methods under 16 scenarios for 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 2 × 4, and 3 × 5 dose combination matrices. We found that performance of the model-based dose-finding methods varied depending on (1) whether the dose combination matrix is square or not; (2) whether the true MTDCs exist within the same group along the diagonals of the dose combination matrix; and (3) the number of true MTDCs. We discuss the details of the operating characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages of the five methods compared.
| S-EPMC4806394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is still a lack of efficient designs for identifying the dose response in oncology combination therapies in early clinical trials. The concentration response relationship can be identified using the early tumor shrinkage time course, which has been shown to be a good early response marker of clinical efficacy. The performance of various designs using an exposure-tumor growth inhibition model was explored using simulations. Different combination effects of new drug M and cetuximab (reference therapy) were explored first assuming no effect of M on cetuximab (to investigate the type I error (α)), and subsequently assuming additivity or synergy between cetuximab and M. One-arm, two-arm, and four-arm designs were evaluated. In the one-arm design, 60 patients received cetuximab + M. In the two-arm design, 30 patients received cetuximab and 30 received cetuximab + M. In the four-arm design, in addition to cetuximab and cetuximab + M as standard doses, combination arms with lower doses of cetuximab were evaluated (15 patients/arm). Model-based predictions or "simulated observations" of early tumor shrinkage at week 8 (ETS8) were compared between the different arms. With the same number of individuals, the one-arm design showed better statistical power than other designs but led to strong inflation of α in case of misestimated reference for ETS8 value. The two-arm design protected against this misestimation and, with the same total number of subjects, would provide higher statistical power than a four-arm design. However, a four-arm design would be helpful for exploring more doses of cetuximab in combination with M to better understand the interaction.
| S-EPMC7762808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The two-phase design is a cost-effective sampling strategy to evaluate the effects of covariates on an outcome when certain covariates are too expensive to be measured on all study subjects. Under such a design, the outcome and inexpensive covariates are measured on all subjects in the first phase and the first-phase information is used to select subjects for measurements of expensive covariates in the second phase. Previous research on two-phase studies has focused largely on the inference procedures rather than the design aspects. We investigate the design efficiency of the two-phase study, as measured by the semiparametric efficiency bound for estimating the regression coefficients of expensive covariates. We consider general two-phase studies, where the outcome variable can be continuous, discrete, or censored, and the second-phase sampling can depend on the first-phase data in any manner. We develop optimal or approximately optimal two-phase designs, which can be substantially more efficient than the existing designs. We demonstrate the improvements of the new designs over the existing ones through extensive simulation studies and two large medical studies.
| S-EPMC7954143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe customary approach to early-phase clinical trial design, where the focus is on identification of the maximum tolerated dose, is not always suitable for noncytotoxic or other targeted therapies. Many trials have continued to follow the 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, but with the addition of phase I dose-expansion cohorts to further characterize safety and assess efficacy. Dose-expansion cohorts are not always planned in advance nor rigorously designed. We introduce an approach to the design of phase I expansion cohorts on the basis of sequential predictive probability monitoring.MethodsTwo optimization criteria are proposed that allow investigators to stop for futility to preserve limited resources while maintaining traditional control of type I and type II errors. We demonstrate the use of these designs through simulation, and we elucidate their implementation with a redesign of the phase I expansion cohort for atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.ResultsA sequential predictive probability design outperforms Simon's two-stage designs and posterior probability monitoring with respect to both proposed optimization criteria. The Bayesian sequential predictive probability design yields increased power while significantly reducing the average sample size under the null hypothesis in the context of the case study, whereas the original study design yields too low type I error and power. The optimal efficiency design tended to have more desirable properties, subject to constraints on type I error and power, compared with the optimal accuracy design.ConclusionThe optimal efficiency design allows investigators to preserve limited financial resources and to maintain ethical standards by halting potentially large dose-expansion cohorts early in the absence of promising efficacy results, while maintaining traditional control of type I and II error rates.
| S-EPMC9200384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditionally, drug development has evaluated dose, safety, activity, and comparative benefit in a sequence of phases using trial designs and endpoints specifically devised for each phase. Innovations in drug development seek to consolidate the phases and rapidly expand accrual with "seamless" trial designs. Although consolidation and rapid accrual may yield efficiencies, widespread use of seamless first-in-human (FiH) trials without careful consideration of objectives, statistical analysis plans, or trial oversight raises concerns. A working group formed by the National Cancer Institute convened to consider and discuss opportunities and challenges for such trials as well as encourage responsible use of these designs. We reviewed all abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings from 2010 to 2017 for FiH trials enrolling at least 100 patients. We identified 1786 early-phase trials enrolling 57 559 adult patients. Fifty-one of the trials (2.9%) investigated 50 investigational new drugs, were seamless, and accounted for 14.6% of the total patients. The seamless trials included a median of 3 (range = 1-13) expansion cohorts. The overall risk of clinically significant treatment-related adverse events (grade 3-4) was 49.1% (range = 0.0-100%), and seven studies reported at least one toxic death. Rapid expansion of FiH trials may lead to earlier drug approval and corresponding widespread patient access to active therapeutics. Nevertheless, seamless designs must adhere to established ethical, scientific, and statistical standards. Protocols should include prospectively planned analyses of efficacy in disease- or biomarker-defined cohorts of sufficient rigor to support accelerated approval.
| S-EPMC6376915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We review the rationale behind the statistical design of dose-finding studies as used in phase I and phase I/II clinical trials. We underline what the objectives of such dose-finding studies should be and why the widely used standard design fails to meet any of these objectives. The standard design is a "memoryless" design and we discuss how this impacts on practical behaviour. Designs introduced over the last two decades can be viewed as designs with memory and we discuss how these designs are superior to memoryless designs. By superior we mean that they require less patients overall, less patients to attain the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and concentrate a higher percentage of patients at and near to the MTD. We reanalyse some recently published studies in order to provide support to our contention that markedly better results could have been achieved had a design with memory been used instead of a memoryless design.
| S-EPMC2374235 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing use of Phase I statistical designs to find a dose that causes rapidly emerging and particularly concerning severe or life-threatening toxicities (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs) in a specified percent of patients most commonly 25%. While a convenient statistical framework, the foundation for selecting any specified target DLT rate, and its relevance to the recommended Phase II dose is generally lacking.MethodWe surveyed 78 medical oncologists, most (69%) with experience as a principal investigator on a Phase I study, to ascertain their opinions related to this approach to Phase I studies and the targets often chosen.ResultsEighty-seven percent of respondents preferred severe toxicities in only 5%-10% of patients, consistent with 58% of respondents noting that 10% or fewer patients experience severe toxicities in the first cycle with standard outpatient treatments. The survey also documented in an example that the majority (62%) of physicians modify their patient selection during the conduct of the study based on observed toxicity and 78% note that higher toxicity is acceptable in patients where a cure is more likely.ConclusionDLT-target rate designs search for a single target that is rarely well-supported in a patient population that is not stable. The most common target used is inconsistent with the toxicity of most clinically used drugs and investigator preference and can lead to the pursuit of unacceptable doses. Use of Phase I trial designs with a target DLT rate should be limited to settings with a well-justified target and should specify how the target relates to the recommended Phase II dose.
| S-EPMC7647940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The cost of next-generation sequencing is now approaching that of early GWAS panels, but is still out of reach for large epidemiologic studies and the millions of rare variants expected poses challenges for distinguishing causal from non-causal variants. We review two types of designs for sequencing studies: two-phase designs for targeted follow-up of genomewide association studies using unrelated individuals; and family-based designs exploiting co-segregation for prioritizing variants and genes. Two-phase designs subsample subjects for sequencing from a larger case-control study jointly on the basis of their disease and carrier status; the discovered variants are then tested for association in the parent study. The analysis combines the full sequence data from the substudy with the more limited SNP data from the main study. We discuss various methods for selecting this subset of variants and describe the expected yield of true positive associations in the context of an on-going study of second breast cancers following radiotherapy. While the sharing of variants within families means that family-based designs are less efficient for discovery than sequencing unrelated individuals, the ability to exploit co-segregation of variants with disease within families helps distinguish causal from non-causal ones. Furthermore, by enriching for family history, the yield of causal variants can be improved and use of identity-by-descent information improves imputation of genotypes for other family members. We compare the relative efficiency of these designs with those using unrelated individuals for discovering and prioritizing variants or genes for testing association in larger studies. While associations can be tested with single variants, power is low for rare ones. Recent generalizations of burden or kernel tests for gene-level associations to family-based data are appealing. These approaches are illustrated in the context of a family-based study of colorectal cancer.
| S-EPMC3861783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEfficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment.MethodsMotivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms.ResultsThe parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick.ConclusionsWe recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.
| S-EPMC8770479 | biostudies-literature