Dataset Information

Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There 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.

Method

We 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.

Results

Eighty-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.

Conclusion

DLT-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.

SUBMITTER: Frankel PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7647940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most monoclonal antibodies in oncology are administered in body-size-based dosing schedules. This is believed to correct for variability in both drug distribution and elimination between patients. However, monoclonal antibodies typically distribute to the blood plasma and extracellular fluids only, which increase less than proportionally with the increase in body weight. Elimination takes place via proteolytic catabolism, a nonspecific immunoglobulin G elimination pathway, and intracellular degradation after binding to the target. The latter is the primary route of elimination and is related to target expression levels rather than body size. Taken together, the minor effects of body size on distribution and elimination of monoclonal antibodies and their usually wide therapeutic window do not support body-size-based dosing. We evaluated effects of body weight on volume of distribution and clearance of monoclonal antibodies in oncology and show that a fixed dose for most of these drugs is justified based on pharmacokinetics. A survey of the savings after fixed dosing of monoclonal antibodies at our hospital showed that fixed dosing can reduce costs of health care, especially when pooling of preparations is not possible (which is often the case in smaller hospitals). In conclusion, based on pharmacokinetic parameters of monoclonal antibodies, there is a rationale for fixed dosing of these drugs in oncology. Therefore, we believe that fixed dosing is justified and can improve efficiency of the compounding. Moreover, drug spillage can be reduced and medication errors may become less likely. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The currently available knowledge of elimination of monoclonal antibodies combined with the publicly available data from clinical trials and extensive population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modeling justifies fixed dosing. Interpatient variation in exposure is comparable after body weight and fixed dosing and most monoclonal antibodies show relatively flat dose-response relationships. For monoclonal antibodies, this results in wide therapeutic windows and no reduced clinical efficacy after fixed dosing. Therefore, we believe that fixed dosing at a well-selected dose can increase medication safety and help in reduction of costs of health care without the loss of efficacy or safety margins.