Designing Dose-Finding Phase I Clinical Trials: Top 10 Questions That Should Be Discussed With Your Statistician.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lee SM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8205224 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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 ?-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-other
Project description:We 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.We 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.On 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).This 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
Project description:The aim of phase I clinical trials is to obtain reliable information on safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and mechanism of action of drugs with the objective of determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In most phase I studies, dose-finding and PK analysis are done separately and no attempt is made to combine them during dose allocation. In cases such as rare diseases, paediatrics, and studies in a biomarker-defined subgroup of a defined population, the available population size will limit the number of possible clinical trials that can be conducted. Combining dose-finding and PK analyses to allow better estimation of the dose-toxicity curve should then be considered. In this work, we propose, study, and compare methods to incorporate PK measures in the dose allocation process during a phase I clinical trial. These methods do this in different ways, including using PK observations as a covariate, as the dependent variable or in a hierarchical model. We conducted a large simulation study that showed that adding PK measurements as a covariate only does not improve the efficiency of dose-finding trials either in terms of the number of observed dose limiting toxicities or the probability of correct dose selection. However, incorporating PK measures does allow better estimation of the dose-toxicity curve while maintaining the performance in terms of MTD selection compared to dose-finding designs that do not incorporate PK information. In conclusion, using PK information in the dose allocation process enriches the knowledge of the dose-toxicity relationship, facilitating better dose recommendation for subsequent trials.
| S-EPMC5573988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Phase 1 trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) often do not use toxicity data beyond the first cycle of treatment to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). We investigated the potential utility of longitudinal relative dose intensity (RDI) that may be a better new way of determining a more accurate RP2D as a lower dose that is presumably more tolerable over the long term without compromising efficacy. All consecutive patients who were initially treated using a single MTA at the conventional RP2D or at one level lower dose (OLLD) of that RP2D in 9 phase 1 trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute were included. The associations between longitudinal RDI, time to first progression, and response rate were analyzed. The RDI of the conventional RP2D group were maintained a rate of ?70% throughout 10 cycles, and were higher than those of the OLLD group, although in both groups the RDI gradually decreased with additional treatment cycles. The RP2D group was similar to the OLLD group with respect to time to first progression and response rate. In both groups, however, the decreasing RDI over time was significantly associated with shorter time to first disease progression; therefore, the longitudinal RDI, which takes into account lower grade toxicity occurrences, may be useful in determining a more desirable dose to use in phase 2 and 3 studies.
| S-EPMC5765308 | biostudies-literature
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
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:We present a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding of a combination of two drugs in cancer phase I clinical trials. The goal is to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as a curve in the two-dimensional Cartesian plane. We use a logistic model to describe the relationship between the doses of the two agents and the probability of dose limiting toxicity. The model is re-parameterized in terms of parameters clinicians can easily interpret. Trial design proceeds using univariate escalation with overdose control, where at each stage of the trial, we seek a dose of one agent using the current posterior distribution of the MTD of this agent given the current dose of the other agent. At the end of the trial, an estimate of the MTD curve is proposed as a function of Bayes estimates of the model parameters. We evaluate design operating characteristics in terms of safety of the trial design and percent of dose recommendation at dose combination neighborhoods around the true MTD curve. We also examine the performance of the approach under model misspecifications for the true dose-toxicity relationship.
| S-EPMC4156522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.MethodsDFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.Results5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.ConclusionsPRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.
| S-EPMC8607259 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:Identifying subgroups of patients with an enhanced response to a new treatment has become an area of increased interest in the last few years. When there is knowledge about possible subpopulations with an enhanced treatment effect before the start of a trial it might be beneficial to set up a testing strategy, which tests for a significant treatment effect not only in the full population, but also in these prespecified subpopulations. In this paper, we present a parametric multiple testing approach for tests in multiple populations for dose-finding trials. Our approach is based on the MCP-Mod methodology, which uses multiple comparison procedures (MCPs) to test for a dose-response signal, while considering multiple possible candidate dose-response shapes. Our proposed methods allow for heteroscedastic error variances between populations and control the family-wise error rate over tests in multiple populations and for multiple candidate models. We show in simulations that the proposed multipopulation testing approaches can increase the power to detect a significant dose-response signal over the standard single-population MCP-Mod, when the specified subpopulation has an enhanced treatment effect.
| S-EPMC6973002 | biostudies-literature