Dose-finding design driven by efficacy in onco-hematology phase I/II trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 13, 2011, Pages 1574-1583

  Seegers, V ^a   Chevret, S ^a   Resche Rigon, M ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Efficacy; Onco hematology; Phase I II trials; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

RITUXIMAB;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER REGRESSION; CHRONIC LYMPHATIC LEUKEMIA; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MEGADOSE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROBABILITY; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL, MURINE-DERIVED; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HEMATOLOGY; HUMANS; LEUKEMIA, LYMPHOCYTIC, CHRONIC, B-CELL; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 79956120361     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4152     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Chevret S. Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments. Statistics in Practice. Wiley: Paris, France, 2006.
2. Storer B. Phase I Trials, in Biostatistics in Clinical Trials. John Wiley and Sons, C. Redmond and T. Colton: Chichester, 2001.
3. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46(1):33-48.
4. Whitehead J, Brunier H. Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14(9-10):885-893; Discussion 895-899.
5. Rogatko A, Babb J, Wang H, Slifker M, Hudes G. Patient characteristics compete with dose as predictors of acute treatment toxicity in early phase clinical trials. Clinical Cancer Research 2004; 10(14):4645-4651.
6. Zohar S, Chevret S. Recent developments in adaptive designs for phase I/II dose-finding studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2007; 17(6):1071-1083.
7. Thall PF, Russell KE. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics 1998; 54(1):251-264.
8. O'Quigley J, Hughes MD, Fenton T. Dose-finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics 2001; 57(4):1018-1029.
9. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60(3):684-693.
10. Dragalin V, Fedorov V. Design of multi-centre trials with binary response. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(16):2701-2719.
11. Whitehead J, Zhou Y, Stevens J, Blakey G. An evaluation of a bayesian method of dose escalation based on bivariate binary responses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 14(4):969-983.
12. Whitehead J, Zhou Y, Stevens J, Blakey G, Price J, Leadbetter J. Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(1):37-53.
13. Zhou Y, Whitehead J, Korhonen P, Mustonen M. Implementation of a Bayesian design in a dose-escalation study of an experimental agent in healthy volunteers. Biometrics 2008; 64(1):299-308.
14. Robert F, Blumenschein G, Herbst R, Fossella F, Tseng J, Saleh M, Needle M. Phase I/IIa study of cetuximab with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005; 23:9089-9096.
15. Kim H, Kang S, Seo S, Han S, Kim J, Park N, Lee H, Song Y. Phase I/IIa study of combination chemotherapy with CKD-602 and cisplatin in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009; 1171:627-634.
16. Thall PF, Cook JD, Estey EH. Adaptive dose selection using efficacy-toxicity trade-offs: illustrations and practical considerations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 16(5):623-638.
17. Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Identifying the most successful dose (MSD) in dose-finding studies in cancer. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 5(3):187-199.
18. Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Optimal designs for estimating the most successful dose. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(24):4311-4320.
19. Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(24):3012-3028.
20. Dragalin V, Fedorov V, Wu Y. Two-stage design for dose-finding that accounts for both efficacy and safety. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(25):5156-5176.
21. Johnson N, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N. Continuous Multivariate Distributions, Models and Applications, vol. 1. Wiley: New York, 2002.
22. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52(2):673-684.
23. Lunn D, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS, a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10(4):325-337.
24. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria 2009. Available from:
25. Thall PF. EffTox Dose-finding Method 2.10.0. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, 2006. Available from:
26. O'Brien SM, Kantarjian H, Thomas DA, Giles FJ, Freireich EJ, Cortes J, Lerner S, Keating MJ. Rituximab dose-escalation trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2001; 19(8):2165-2170.
27. Ratain M, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. Journal-National Cancer Institute 1993; 85:1637-1643.
28. Chevret S. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Statistics in Medicine 1993; 12(12):1093-1108.
29. Arnold B, Castillo E, Sarabia J. Some alternative bivariate gumbel models. Environmetrics 1998; 9(6):599-616.