Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A comparative study of adaptive dose-finding designs for phase I oncology trials of combination therapies.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hirakawa A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4806394 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

A comparative study of adaptive dose-finding designs for phase I oncology trials of combination therapies.

Hirakawa Akihiro A Wages Nolan A NA Sato Hiroyuki H Matsui Shigeyuki S

Statistics in medicine 20150513 24

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-findi ...[more]

PMID: 25974405

Similar Datasets

On the coherence of model-based dose-finding designs for drug combination trials.

Project description:The concept of coherence was proposed for single-agent phase I clinical trials to describe the property that a design never escalates the dose when the most recently treated patient has toxicity and never de-escalates the dose when the most recently treated patient has no toxicity. It provides a useful theoretical tool for investigating the properties of phase I trial designs. In this paper, we generalize the concept of coherence to drug combination trials, which are substantially different and more challenging than single-agent trials. For example, in the dose-combination matrix, each dose has up to 8 neighboring doses as candidates for dose escalation and de-escalation, and the toxicity orders of these doses are only partially known. We derive sufficient conditions for a model-based drug combination trial design to be coherent. Our results are more general and relaxed than the existing results and are applicable to both single-agent and drug combination trials. We illustrate the application of our theoretical results with a number of drug combination dose-finding designs in the literature.

| S-EPMC7703981 | biostudies-literature

Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials.

Project description:BackgroundDose-finding trials are essential to drug development as they establish recommended doses for later-phase testing. We aim to motivate wider use of model-based designs for dose finding, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM).MethodsWe carried out a literature review of dose-finding designs and conducted a survey to identify perceived barriers to their implementation.ResultsWe describe the benefits of model-based designs (flexibility, superior operating characteristics, extended scope), their current uptake, and existing resources. The most prominent barriers to implementation of a model-based design were lack of suitable training, chief investigators' preference for algorithm-based designs (e.g., 3+3), and limited resources for study design before funding. We use a real-world example to illustrate how these barriers can be overcome.ConclusionsThere is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of CRM. Many leading pharmaceutical companies routinely implement model-based designs. Our analysis identified barriers for academic statisticians and clinical academics in mirroring the progress industry has made in trial design. Unified support from funders, regulators, and journal editors could result in more accurate doses for later-phase testing, and increase the efficiency and success of clinical drug development. We give recommendations for increasing the uptake of model-based designs for dose-finding trials in academia.

| S-EPMC5537496 | biostudies-literature

Phase I/II adaptive design for drug combination oncology trials.

Project description:Existing statistical methodology on dose finding for combination chemotherapies has focused on toxicity considerations alone in finding a maximum tolerated dose combination to recommend for further testing of efficacy in a phase II setting. Recently, there has been increasing interest in integrating phase I and phase II trials in order to facilitate drug development. In this article, we propose a new adaptive phase I/II method for dual-agent combinations that takes into account both toxicity and efficacy after each cohort inclusion. The primary objective, both within and at the conclusion of the trial, becomes finding a single dose combination with an acceptable level of toxicity that maximizes efficacious response. We assume that there exist monotone dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships among doses of one agent when the dose of other agent is fixed. We perform extensive simulation studies that demonstrate the operating characteristics of our proposed approach, and we compare simulated results to existing methodology in phase I/II design for combinations of agents.

| S-EPMC4258389 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy and Safety of Novel Designs for Phase I Drug-Combination Oncology Trials.

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

AAA: triple adaptive Bayesian designs for the identification of optimal dose combinations in dual-agent dose finding trials.

Project description:We propose a flexible design for the identification of optimal dose combinations in dual-agent dose finding clinical trials. The design is called AAA, standing for three adaptations: adaptive model selection, adaptive dose insertion and adaptive cohort division. The adaptations highlight the need and opportunity for innovation for dual-agent dose finding and are supported by the numerical results presented in the proposed simulation studies. To our knowledge, this is the first design that allows for all three adaptations at the same time. We find that AAA enhances the chance of finding the optimal dose combinations and shortens the trial duration. A clinical trial is being planned to apply the AAA design and a Web tool is being developed for both statisticians and non-statisticians.

| S-EPMC6561465 | biostudies-literature

Subgroup-specific dose finding in phase I clinical trials based on time to toxicity allowing adaptive subgroup combination.

Project description:A Bayesian design is presented that does precision dose finding based on time to toxicity in a phase I clinical trial with two or more patient subgroups. The design, called Sub-TITE, makes sequentially adaptive subgroup-specific decisions while possibly combining subgroups that have similar estimated dose-toxicity curves. Decisions are based on posterior quantities computed under a logistic regression model for the probability of toxicity within a fixed follow-up period, as a function of dose and subgroup. Similarly to the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM, Cheung and Chappell), the Sub-TITE design downweights each patient's likelihood contribution using a function of follow-up time. Spike-and-slab priors are assumed for subgroup parameters, with latent subgroup combination variables included in the logistic model to allow different subgroups to be combined for dose finding if they are homogeneous. This framework can be used in trials where clinicians have identified patient subgroups but are not certain whether they will have different dose-toxicity curves. A simulation study shows that, when the dose-toxicity curves differ between all subgroups, Sub-TITE has superior performance compared with applying the TITE-CRM while ignoring subgroups and has slightly better performance than applying the TITE-CRM separately within subgroups or using the two-group maximum likelihood approach of Salter et al that borrows strength among the two groups. When two or more subgroups are truly homogeneous but differ from other subgroups, the Sub-TITE design is substantially superior to either ignoring subgroups, running separate trials within all subgroups, or the maximum likelihood approach of Salter et al. Practical guidelines and computer software are provided to facilitate application.

| S-EPMC6640643 | biostudies-literature

Comments on 'competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials' by M-K. Riviere, F. Dubois, S. Zohar.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4264835 | biostudies-literature

Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials.

Project description:PurposeWe provide a comprehensive review of adaptive phase I clinical trials in oncology that used a statistical model to guide dose escalation to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). We describe the clinical setting, practical implications, and safety of such applications, with the aim of understanding how these designs work in practice.MethodsWe identified 53 phase I trials published between January 2003 and September 2013 that used the continual reassessment method (CRM), CRM using escalation with overdose control, or time-to-event CRM for late-onset toxicities. Study characteristics, design parameters, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, DLT rate, patient-dose allocation, overdose, underdose, sample size, and trial duration were abstracted from each study. In addition, we examined all studies in terms of safety, and we outlined the reasons why escalations occur and under what circumstances.ResultsOn average, trials accrued 25 to 35 patients over a 2-year period and tested five dose levels. The average DLT rate was 18%, which is lower than in previous reports, whereas all levels above the MTD had an average DLT rate of 36%. On average, 39% of patients were treated at the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjacent level (one level above or below).ConclusionThis review of completed phase I studies confirms the safety and generalizability of model-guided, adaptive dose-escalation designs, and it provides an approach for using, interpreting, and understanding such designs to guide dose escalation in phase I trials.

| S-EPMC4121508 | biostudies-literature

A comparison of model-free phase I dose escalation designs for dual-agent combination therapies.

Project description:It is increasingly common for therapies in oncology to be given in combination. In some cases, patients can benefit from the interaction between two drugs, although often at the risk of higher toxicity. A large number of designs to conduct phase I trials in this setting are available, where the objective is to select the maximum tolerated dose combination. Recently, a number of model-free (also called model-assisted) designs have provoked interest, providing several practical advantages over the more conventional approaches of rule-based or model-based designs. In this paper, we demonstrate a novel calibration procedure for model-free designs to determine their most desirable parameters. Under the calibration procedure, we compare the behaviour of model-free designs to model-based designs in a comprehensive simulation study, covering a number of clinically plausible scenarios. It is found that model-free designs are competitive with the model-based designs in terms of the proportion of correct selections of the maximum tolerated dose combination. However, there are a number of scenarios in which model-free designs offer a safer alternative. This is also illustrated in the application of the designs to a case study using data from a phase I oncology trial.

| S-EPMC10928960 | biostudies-literature

Practical designs for Phase I combination studies in oncology.

Project description: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, with the aim of increasing the use of novel approaches in Phase I combination studies. Design specifications and software capabilities are also discussed.

| S-EPMC4720553 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data