Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

21 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Logistic retainment interval dose exploration design for Phase I clinical trials of cytotoxic agents.

ABSTRACT: Phase I studies of a cytotoxic agent often aim to identify the dose that provides an investigator specified target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) probability. In practice, an initial cohort receives a dose with a putative low DLT probability, and subsequent dosing follows by consecutively deciding whether to retain the current dose, escalate to the adjacent higher dose, or de-escalate to the adjacent lower dose. This article proposes a Phase I design derived using a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to this sequential decision-making process. The design consecutively chooses the action that minimizes posterior expected loss where the loss reflects the distance on the log-odds scale between the target and the DLT probability of the dose that would be given to the next cohort under the corresponding action. A logistic model is assumed for the log odds of a DLT at the current dose with a weakly informative t-distribution prior centered at the target. The key design parameters are the pre-specified odds ratios for the DLT probabilities at the adjacent higher and lower doses. Dosing rules may be pre-tabulated, as these only depend on the outcomes at the current dose, which greatly facilitates implementation. The recommended default version of the proposed design improves dose selection relative to many established designs across a variety of scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Murray TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Two-stage design for phase I-II cancer clinical trials using continuous dose combinations of cytotoxic agents.

Project description:We present a two-stage phase I/II design of a combination of two drugs in cancer clinical trials. The goal is to estimate safe dose combination regions with a desired level of efficacy. In stage I, conditional escalation with overdose control is used to allocate dose combinations to successive cohorts of patients and the maximum tolerated dose curve is estimated as a function of Bayes estimates of the model parameters. In stage II, we propose a Bayesian adaptive design for conducting the phase II trial to determine dose combination regions along the MTD curve with a desired level of efficacy. The methodology is evaluated by extensive simulations and application to a real trial.

| S-EPMC6368405 | biostudies-literature

Combining cytotoxic agents with continuous dose levels in seamless phase I-II clinical trials.

Project description:Phase I-II cancer clinical trial designs are intended to accelerate drug development. In cases where efficacy cannot be ascertained in a short period of time, it is common to divide the study in two stages: i) a first stage in which dose is escalated based only on toxicity data and we look for the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) set and ii) a second stage in which we search for the most efficacious dose within the MTD set. Current available approaches in the area of continuous dose levels involve fixing the MTD after stage I and discarding all collected stage I efficacy data. However, this methodology is clearly inefficient when there is a unique patient population present across stages. In this article, we propose a two-stage design for the combination of two cytotoxic agents assuming a single patient population across the entire study. In stage I, conditional escalation with overdose control (EWOC) is used to allocate successive cohorts of patients. In stage II, we employ an adaptive randomization approach to allocate patients to drug combinations along the estimated MTD curve, which is constantly updated. The proposed methodology is assessed with extensive simulations in the context of a real case study.

| S-EPMC9918144 | biostudies-literature

Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.

Project description:The primary objective of phase I oncology trials is to find the MTD. The 3+3 design is easy to implement but performs poorly in finding the MTD. A newer design, such as the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design, provides better accuracy to identify the MTD but tends to overdose patients. We propose the keyboard design, an intuitive Bayesian design that conducts dose escalation and de-escalation based on whether the strongest key, defined as the dosing interval that most likely contains the current dose, is below or above the target dosing interval. The keyboard design can be implemented in a simple way, similar to the traditional 3+3 design, but provides more flexibility for choosing the target toxicity rate and cohort size. Our simulation studies demonstrate that compared with the 3+3 design, the keyboard design has favorable operating characteristics in terms of identifying the MTD. Compared with the mTPI design, the keyboard design is safer, with a substantially lower risk of treating patients at overly toxic doses, and has the better precision to identify the MTD, thereby providing a useful upgrade to the mTPI design. Software freely available at http://www.trialdesign.org facilitates the application of the keyboard design. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 3994-4003. ©2017 AACRSee related commentary by Paoletti et al., p. 3977.

| S-EPMC5554436 | biostudies-literature

Design considerations for early-phase clinical trials of immune-oncology agents.

Project description:BackgroundWith numerous and fast approvals of different agents including immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, immunotherapy is now an established form of cancer treatment. These agents have demonstrated impressive clinical activity across many tumor types, but also revealed different toxicity profiles and mechanisms of action. The classic assumptions imposed by cytotoxic agents may no longer be applicable, requiring new strategies for dose selection and trial design.DescriptionThis main goal of this article is to summarize and highlight main challenges of early-phase study design of immunotherapies from a statistical perspective. We compared the underlying toxicity and efficacy assumptions of cytotoxic versus immune-oncology agents, proposed novel endpoints to be included in the dose-selection process, and reviewed design considerations to be considered for early-phase trials. When available, references to software and/or web-based applications were also provided to ease the implementation. Throughout the paper, concrete examples from completed (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or ongoing trials were used to motivate the main ideas including recommendation of alternative designs.ConclusionFurther advances in the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies will require new approaches that include redefining the optimal dose to be carried forward in later phases, incorporating additional endpoints in the dose selection process (PK, PD, immune-based biomarkers), developing personalized biomarker profiles, or testing drug combination therapies to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity.

| S-EPMC6103998 | biostudies-literature

A comparative study of Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design with interval 3+3 (i3+3) design for phase I oncology dose-finding trials.

Project description:Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design is a model-assisted phase I dose-finding design to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The hallmark of the BOIN design is its concise decision rule - making the decision of dose escalation and de-escalation by simply comparing the observed dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate at the current dose with a pair of optimal dose escalation and de-escalation boundaries. The interval 3+3 (i3+3) design is a recently proposed algorithm-based dose-finding design based on a similar decision rule with some modifications. The similarity in the appearance of the two designs has caused confusions among practitioners. In this article, we demystify the i3+3 design by elucidating its links with the BOIN design and compare their similarities and differences, as well as pros and cons. We perform comprehensive simulation studies to compare the operating characteristics of the two designs. Our results show that, compared to the algorithm-based i3+3 design, which are characterized by ad hoc and often scientifically and logically incoherent decision rules, the mode-assisted BOIN design is not only simpler, but also statistically more rigorous with better operating characteristics, thus providing a better design choice for phase I oncology trials.

| S-EPMC8261789 | biostudies-literature

A dose-schedule finding design for phase I-II clinical trials.

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

A Bayesian Dose-finding Design for Oncology Clinical Trials of Combinational Biological Agents.

Project description:Treating patients with novel biological agents is becoming a leading trend in oncology. Unlike cytotoxic agents, for which efficacy and toxicity monotonically increase with dose, biological agents may exhibit non-monotonic patterns in their dose-response relationships. Using a trial with two biological agents as an example, we propose a dose-finding design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), which is defined as the dose combination of the two agents with the highest efficacy and tolerable toxicity. A change-point model is used to reflect the fact that the dose-toxicity surface of the combinational agents may plateau at higher dose levels, and a flexible logistic model is proposed to accommodate the possible non-monotonic pattern for the dose-efficacy relationship. During the trial, we continuously update the posterior estimates of toxicity and efficacy and assign patients to the most appropriate dose combination. We propose a novel dose-finding algorithm to encourage sufficient exploration of untried dose combinations in the two-dimensional space. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics in identifying the BODC under various patterns of dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships.

| S-EPMC3913186 | biostudies-literature

Time-to-Event Bayesian Optimal Interval Design to Accelerate Phase I Trials.

Project description:Late-onset toxicity is common for novel molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy. It causes major logistic difficulty for existing adaptive phase I trial designs, which require the observance of toxicity early enough to apply dose-escalation rules for new patients. The same logistic difficulty arises when the accrual is rapid. We propose the time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval (TITE-BOIN) design to accelerate phase I trials by allowing for real-time dose assignment decisions for new patients while some enrolled patients' toxicity data are still pending. Similar to the rolling six design, the TITE-BOIN dose-escalation/deescalation rule can be tabulated before the trial begins, making it transparent and simple to implement, but is more flexible in choosing the target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate and has higher accuracy to identify the MTD. Compared with the more complicated model-based time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TITE-CRM), the TITE-BOIN has comparable accuracy to identify the MTD but is simpler to implement with substantially better overdose control. As the TITE-CRM is more aggressive in dose escalation, it is less likely to underdose patients. When there are no pending data, the TITE-BOIN seamlessly reduces to the BOIN design. Numerical studies show that the TITE-BOIN design supports continuous accrual without sacrificing patient safety or the accuracy of identifying the MTD, and therefore has great potential to accelerate early-phase drug development. Clin Cancer Res; 24(20); 4921-30. ©2018 AACR.

| S-EPMC6191365 | biostudies-literature

Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.

Project description:Despite more than two decades of publications that offer more innovative model-based designs, the classical 3 + 3 design remains the most dominant phase I trial design in practice. In this article, we introduce a new trial design, the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design. The BOIN design is easy to implement in a way similar to the 3 + 3 design, but is more flexible for choosing the target toxicity rate and cohort size and yields a substantially better performance that is comparable with that of more complex model-based designs. The BOIN design contains the 3 + 3 design and the accelerated titration design as special cases, thus linking it to established phase I approaches. A numerical study shows that the BOIN design generally outperforms the 3 + 3 design and the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design. The BOIN design is more likely than the 3 + 3 design to correctly select the MTD and allocate more patients to the MTD. Compared with the mTPI design, the BOIN design has a substantially lower risk of overdosing patients and generally a higher probability of correctly selecting the MTD. User-friendly software is freely available to facilitate the application of the BOIN design. Clin Cancer Res; 22(17); 4291-301. ©2016 AACR.

| S-EPMC5047439 | biostudies-literature

Bayesian adaptive model selection design for optimal biological dose finding in phase I/II clinical trials.

Project description:Identification of the optimal dose presents a major challenge in drug development with molecularly targeted agents, immunotherapy, as well as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatments. By casting dose finding as a Bayesian model selection problem, we propose an adaptive design by simultaneously incorporating the toxicity and efficacy outcomes to select the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II clinical trials. Without imposing any parametric assumption or shape constraint on the underlying dose-response curves, we specify curve-free models for both the toxicity and efficacy endpoints to determine the OBD. By integrating the observed data across all dose levels, the proposed design is coherent in dose assignment and thus greatly enhances efficiency and accuracy in pinning down the right dose. Not only does our design possess a completely new yet flexible dose-finding framework, but it also has satisfactory and robust performance as demonstrated by extensive simulation studies. In addition, we show that our design enjoys desirable coherence properties, while most of existing phase I/II designs do not. We further extend the design to accommodate late-onset outcomes which are common in immunotherapy. The proposed design is exemplified with a phase I/II clinical trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

| S-EPMC10102885 | 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