Approaches to phase 1 clinical trial design focused on safety, efficiency, and selected patient populations: A report from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1726-1736

  Ivy, S Percy ^a   Siu, Lillian L ^b   Garrett Mayer, Elizabeth ^c   Rubinstein, Larry ^a  

^a Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program   (United States)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

5 AZA 2' DEOXYCYTIDINE; BEVACIZUMAB; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BORTEZOMIB; CETUXIMAB; DASATINIB; ERLOTINIB; EVEROLIMUS; GEFITINIB; IMATINIB; LAPATINIB; NILOTINIB; PANITUMUMAB; PAZOPANIB; SORAFENIB; SUNITINIB; TEMSIROLIMUS; TRASTUZUMAB; VORINOSTAT;

CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SELECTION; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SELECTION; PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAFETY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77949699034     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1961     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Von Hoff DD, Turner J. Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 1991;9:115-22.
2. Le Tourneau C, Stathis A, Vidal L, Moore MJ, Siu LL. Choice of starting dose of molecularly targeted agents evaluated in first-in-human phase I cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Feb 1 [Epub ahead of print].
3. Eisenhauer EA, O'Dwyer PJ, Christian M, et al. Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:684-92.
4. Dowlati A, Manda S, Gibbons J, et al. Multi-institutional phase I trials of anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1926-31.
5. Parulekar WR, Eisenhauer EA. Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:990-7.
6. Arbuck SG. Workshop on phase I study design. Ninth NCI/EORTC New Drug Development Symposium, Amsterdam, March 12, 1996. Ann Oncol 1996;7:567-73.
7. Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L, et al. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89: 1138-47.
8. Sheiner LB. Implications of an alternative approach to dose-response trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1990;3:S20-6.
9. Sheiner LB, Beal SL, Sambol NC. Study designs for dose-ranging. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989;46:63-77.
10. Dancey J, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L. Accelerated titration designs. In: Chevret S, editor. Statistical methods for dose-finding experiments. Chichester, West Sussex (England); Hoboken (NJ): Wiley Press; 2006, p. 91-114.
11. Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, et al. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 2005;352: 895-904.
12. Kurzrock R, Benjamin RS. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, revisited. N Engl J Med 2005;352:930-2.
13. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990;46:33-48.
14. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0, DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS, March 31, 2003.
15. Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 1994;4: 147-64.
16. Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1995;14:1149-61.
17. Moller S. An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses. Stat Med 1995;14:911-22, discussion 923.
18. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996;52:673-84.
19. Piantadosi S, Fisher JD, Grossman S. Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1998;41:429-36.
20. Ishizuka N, Ohashi Y. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 2001;20:2661-81.
21. Zohar S, Chevret S. Phase I (or phase II) dose-ranging clinical trials: proposal of a two-stage Bayesian design. J Biopharm Stat 2003;13: 87-101.
22. Braun TM. The bivariate continual reassessment method. extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:240-56.
23. Mandrekar SJ, Cui Y, Sargent DJ. An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med 2007;26:2317-30.
24. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000;56:1177-82.
25. Braun TM. Generalizing the TITE-CRM to adapt for early- and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med 2006;25:2071-83.
26. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998;17: 1103-20.
27. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, et al. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4982-6.
28. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials 2006;3:57-71.
29. Loeb DM, Garrett-Mayer E, Hobbs RF, et al. Dose-finding study of 153Sm-EDTMP in patients with poor-prognosis osteosarcoma. Cancer 2009;115:2514-22.
30. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:711-5.
31. Administration, UDoHaHS-FaD. Innovation or stagnation: Challenges and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products.2004, http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/ CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm.
32. Von Hoff DD, LoRusso PM, Rudin CM, et al. Inhibition of the hedgehog pathway in advanced basal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1164-72.
33. LoRusso PM, Rudin CM, Borad MJ, et al. A first-in-human, first-in-class, phase (ph) I study of systemic Hedgehog (Hh) pathway antagonist, GDC-0449, in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2008;26:3516.
34. Kwak EL, Camidge DR, Clark J, et al. Clinical activity observed in a phase I dose escalation trial of an oral c-met and ALK inhibitor, PF-02341066. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2009;27:3509.
35. Flaherty K, Puzanov I, Sosman J, et al. Phase I study of PLX4032: Proof of concept for V600E BRAF mutation as a therapeutic target in human cancer. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2009;27:9000.
36. Garber K. Trial offers early test case for personalized medicine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:136-8.
37. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89-95.
38. Goulart BH, Clark JW, Pien HH, et al. Trends in the use and role of biomarkers in phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:6719-26.
39. Kinders R, Parchment RE, Ji J, et al. Phase 0 clinical trials in cancer drug development: from FDA guidance to clinical practice. Mol Interv 2007;7:325-34.
40. Kummar S, Kinders R, Rubinstein L, et al. Compressing drug development timelines in oncology using phase '0' trials. Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7:131-9.
41. Murgo AJ, Kummar S, Rubinstein L, et al. Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:3675-82.
42. Kummar S, Gutierrez M, Kinders R, et al. Phase 0 pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic study of ABT-888, an inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), in patients with advanced malignancies. Ann Oncol 2008;19:iii12.
43. Kummar S, Kinders R, Gutierrez ME, et al. Phase 0 clinical trial of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor ABT-888 in patients with advanced malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2705-11.
44. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:1-10.
45. Editors. Phase 0 trials: a platform for drug development? Lancet 2009;374:176.
46. LoRusso PM. Phase 0 clinical trials: an answer to drug development stagnation? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2586-8.