Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: Comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 657-665

  Doussau, A ^a,b,c   Asselain, B ^a,d   Le Deley, M C ^e   Geoerger, B ^e   Doz, F ^a,f   Vassal, G ^e   Paoletti, X ^a,d  

^a INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^b BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^d INSERM U900   (France)

^e INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^f UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

Dose escalation design; Model based design; Pediatrics; Phase i clinical trial; Simulations

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); SIMULATION; STUDY DESIGN; TOXICITY TESTING;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PATIENT SELECTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84861521172     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: 15592030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.11.015     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Roberts T.G., Goulart B.H., Squitieri L., Stallings S.C., Halpern E.F., Chabner B.A., et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. JAMA Nov 3 2004, 292(17):2130-2140.
2. Ratain M.J., Humphrey R.W., Gordon G.B., Fyfe G., Adamson P.C., Fleming T.R., et al. Recommended changes to oncology clinical trial design: revolution or evolution?. Eur J Cancer Jan 2008, 44(1):8-11.
3. Lee D.P., Skolnik J.M., Adamson P.C. Pediatric phase I trials in oncology: an analysis of study conduct efficiency. J Clin Oncol Nov 20 2005, 23(33):8431-8441.
4. Smith M., Bernstein M., Bleyer W.A., Borsi J.D., Ho P., Lewis I.J., et al. Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol Mar 1998, 16(3):966-978.
5. Storer B.E. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics Sep 1989, 45(3):925-937.
6. O'Quigley J., Shen L.Z. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics Jun 1996, 52(2):673-684.
7. Skolnik J.M., Barrett J.S., Jayaraman B., Patel D., Adamson P.C. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J Clin Oncol Jan 10 2008, 26(2):190-195.
8. Neuenschwander B., Branson M., Gsponer T. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Stat Med Jun 15 2008, 27(13):2420-2439.
9. Geoerger B., Hargrave D., Thomas F., Ndiaye A., Frappaz D., Andreiuolo F. Innovative therapies for children with cancer pediatric phase I study of erlotinib in brainstem glioma and relapsing/refractory brain tumors. Neuro Oncol Jan 2011, 13(1):109-118. [2010 Oct 25, Electronic publication ahead of print].
10. Blanchard M.S., Longmate J.A. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical phase I design. Contemp Clin Trials Jan 2011, 32(1):114-121.
11. Paoletti X., Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Stat Med Oct 30 2009, 28(24):3012-3028.
12. Paoletti X., Baron B., Schoffski P., Fumoleau P., Lacombe D., Marreaud S., et al. Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study. Eur J Cancer Jul 2006, 42(10):1362-1368.
13. Shen L.Z., O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method in dose finding studies. Biometrika 1996, 83:395-406.
14. O'Quigley J. Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics Mar 2002, 3(1):87-99.
15. Paoletti X., O'Quigley J., Maccario J. Design efficiency in dose finding studies. Comput Stat Data Anal 2004, 45(2):197-214.
16. O'Quigley J., Paoletti X., Maccario J. Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics Mar 2002, 3(1):51-56.
17. Onar-Thomas A., Xiong Z. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric phase I oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials May 2010, 31(3):259-270.
18. Bretz F., Dette H., Pinheiro J.C. Practical considerations for optimal designs in clinical dose finding studies. Stat Med Mar 30 2010, 29(7-8):731-742.
19. Whitehead J., Williamson D. Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. J Biopharm Stat Jul 1998, 8(3):445-467.
20. Cheung Y.K., Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics Dec 2000, 56(4):1177-1182.
21. Van Meter E.M., Garrett-Mayer E., Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat Med Jul 30 2011, 30(17):2070-2080.
22. O'Quigley J., Paoletti X. Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 2003, 59(2):430-440.
23. Meany H., Balis F.M., Aikin A., Whitcomb P., Murphy R.F., Steinberg S.M., et al. Pediatric phase I trial design using maximum target inhibition as the primary endpoint. J Natl Cancer Inst Jun 16 2010, 102(12):909-912.
24. Thomas D.M., Albritton K.H., Ferrari A. Adolescent and young adult oncology: an emerging field. J Clin Oncol Nov 10 2010, 28(32):4781-4782.
25. Mandrekar S.J., Qin R., Sargent D.J. Model-based phase I designs incorporating toxicity and efficacy for single and dual agent drug combinations: methods and challenges. Stat Med May 10 2010, 29(10):1077-1083.
26. Rosenberger W.F., Haines L.M. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med Sep 30 2002, 21(18):2757-2770.
27. Thall P.F., Cook J.D. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics Sep 2004, 60(3):684-693.