New paradigm in dose-finding trials: Patient-specific dosing and beyond phase I

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 11, Issue 15, 2005, Pages 5342-5346

  Rogatko, André ^a   Babb, James S ^b   Tighiouart, Mourad ^a   Khuri, Fadlo R ^a   Hudes, Gary ^c  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; PACLITAXEL;

CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; HUMAN; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DESIGN; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT PLANNING;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; DRUG EVALUATION; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 23044510049     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0458     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Rogatko A, Babb JS, Wang H, Slifker MJ, Hudes GR. Patient characteristics compete with dose as predictors of acute treatment toxicity in early phase clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:4645-51.
2. Raymond E, Boige V, Faivre S, et al. Dosage adjustment and pharmacokinetic profile of irinotecan in cancer patients with hepatic dysfunction. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4303-12.
3. Meyerhardt JA, Kwok A, Ratain MJ, McGovren JP, Fuchs CS. Relationship of baseline serum bilirubin to efficacy and toxicity of single-agent irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1439-46.
4. Poole C, Gardiner J, Twelves C, et al. Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of capecitabine (Xeloda) in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2002;49:225-34.
5. Valero V, Holmes FA, Walters RS, et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel: a new, highly effective antineoplastic agent in the management of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2886-94.
6. 2 is effective but not feasible for some metastatic breast cancer patients heavily pretreated with chemotherapy-a phase II single-center study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1127.
7. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer Phase I clinical Trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998;17:1103-20.
8. Thall PF, Sung HG, Choudhury A. Dose-finding based on feasibility and toxicity in T-cell infusion trials. Biometrics 2001;57:914-21.
9. Zacks S, Rogatko A, Babb J. Optimal Bayesian-feasible dose escalation for cancer phase I trials. Stat Prob Lett 1998;38:215-20.
10. Babb JS, Rogatko A. Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase I clinical trial. Stat Med 2001;20:2079-90.
11. Tighiouart M, Rogatko A, Babb J. Flexible Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials: dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med; 2005.
12. Dillman RO, Koziol JA. Phase I cancer trials: limitations and implications. Mol Biother 1992;4:117-21.
13. Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med 1996;15:1605-18.
14. Wijesinha MC, Piantadosi S. Dose-response models with covariates. Biometrics 1995;51:977-87.
15. Newell DR. Pharmacologically based phase I trials in cancer chemotherapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1994;8:257-75.
16. Cheng JD, Babb JS, Langer C, et al. Individualized patient dosing in phase I clinical trials: The role of EWOC in PNU-214936. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:602-9.
17. Hudes GR, Obasaju C, Chapman A, et al. Phase I study of paclitaxel and estramustine: preliminary activity in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 1995;22:6-11.
18. Hudes GR, Nathan F, Khater C, et al. Phase II trial of 96-hour paclitaxel plus oral estramustine phosphate in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:3156-63.
19. Dent SF, Eisenhauer EA. Phase I trial design: are new methodologies being put into practice? Ann Oncol 1996;7:561-6.
20. Eisenhauer EA, O'Dwyer PJ, Christian M, Humphrey JS. Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:684-92.
21. Shen LZ, O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometrika 1996;83:395-405.
22. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs. Stat Med 1998;17:1537-49.
23. Storer B. Choosing a Phase I Design. In: Crowley J, editor. Handbook of statistics in clinical oncology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2001. p. 73-91.
24. O'Quigley J, Chevret S. Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: a review and results of a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 1991;10:1647-64.
25. Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantarjian HM, Legha SS, Raber MN. Design and results of phase I cancer clinical trials: three-year experience at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:287-95.