The impact of non-drug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase i trials

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 18, Issue 19, 2012, Pages 5179-5187

  Iasonos, Alexia ^a   Gounder, Mrinal ^a   Spriggs, David R ^a   Gerecitano, John F ^a   Hyman, David M ^a   Zohar, Sarah ^b   O'Quigley, John ^b  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE CALCULATION; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; DRUG SAFETY; HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MEDICAL ERROR; PATIENT SAFETY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TOXICITY; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

ALGORITHMS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84866914428     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: 15573265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0726     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Crowe BJ, Xia HA, Berlin JA, Watson DJ, Shi H, Lin SL, et al. Recommendations for safety planning, data collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development: a report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team. Clin Trials 2009;6:430-40.
2. Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: A practical perspective. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2003.
3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. September 2010 draft guidance for industry and investigators: safety reporting requirements for INDs and BA/BE studies. [Cited 2012 Sept 7]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM227351.pdf
4. Mukherjee SD, Coombes ME, Levine M, Cosby J, Kowaleski B, Arnold A. A qualitative study evaluating causality attribution for serious adverse events during early phase oncology clinical trials. Invest New Drugs 2011;29:1013-20.
5. Sargent DJ, George SL. Clinical trials data collection: when less is more. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:5019-21.
6. FDA. Guideline for industry: clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. 1995. [Cited 2012 Sept 7]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidance- ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM073087.pdf
7. FDA. Investigational new drug safety reporting requirements for human drug and biological products and safety reporting requirements for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies in humans. Final rule. Fed Regist 2010;75:59935-63.
8. Storer BE. Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989;45:925-37. (Pubitemid 19249331)
9. 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. (Pubitemid 20245604)
10. O'Quigley J, Paoletti X, Maccario J. Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics 2002;3:51-6. (Pubitemid 34374242)
11. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4982-6. (Pubitemid 350220431)
12. O'Quigley J, Shen L. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996;52:673-84. (Pubitemid 26187071)
13. Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Sensitivity of dose-finding studies to observation errors. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30:523-30.
14. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, Seshan VE, Spriggs DR. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials 2008;5:465-77.
15. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials 2006;3:57-71.
16. He W, Liu J, Binkowitz B, Quan H. A model-based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 2006;25:2027-42. (Pubitemid 43950277)
17. Horng S, Emanuel EJ, Wilfond B, Rackoff J, Martz K, Grady C. Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials. N Engl J Med 2002;347:2134-40. (Pubitemid 36015126)
18. Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, Yamamoto S, Rubinstein L, Budd T, et al. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 2005;352:895-904. (Pubitemid 40300298)
19. Kurzrock R, Benjamin RS. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, revisited. N Engl J Med 2005;352:930-2. (Pubitemid 40300304)
20. Muggia FM. Phase 1 clinical trials in oncology. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2451-3.
21. Roberts TG Jr, Goulart BH, Squitieri L, Stallings SC, Halpern EF, Chabner BA, et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. JAMA 2004;292:2130-40. (Pubitemid 39435104)
22. Sekine I, Yamamoto N, Kunitoh H, Ohe Y, Tamura T, Kodama T, et al. Relationship between objective responses in phase I trials and potential efficacy of non-specific cytotoxic investigational new drugs. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1300-6. (Pubitemid 34960140)
23. Cheung Y. Coherence principles in dose-finding studies. Biometrika 2005;92:863-73. (Pubitemid 41681239)
24. Hamberg P, Ratain MJ, Lesaffre E, Verweij J. Dose-escalation models for combinations phase I trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2870-8.
25. Zhao L, Lee J, Mody R, Braun TM. The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials. Clin Trials 2011;8:361-9.
26. Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. J Comput Stat Data Analysis 1999;30:303-15.
27. O'Quigley J, Zohar S. Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies. Br J Cancer 2006;94:609-13. (Pubitemid 43361888)
28. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:708-20.
29. Conaway MR, Dunbar S, Peddada SD. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics 2004;60:661-9. (Pubitemid 39181110)
30. O'Quigley J, Iasonos A. Handbook of statistics in clinical oncology. London (UK): CRC Press; 2011.
31. Hillman SL, Mandrekar SJ, Bot B, DeMatteo RP, Perez EA, Ballman KV, et al. Evaluation of the value of attribution in the interpretation of adverse event data: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group investigation. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3002-7.
32. Kaiser LD, Melemed AS, Preston AJ, Chaudri Ross HA, Niedzwiecki D, Fyfe GA, et al. Optimizing collection of adverse event data in cancer clinical trials supporting supplemental indications. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:5046-53.
33. Mahoney MR, Sargent DJ, O'Connell MJ, Goldberg RM, Schaefer P, Buckner JC. Dealing with a deluge of data: an assessment of adverse event data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9275-81.
34. Woodcock J, Grif fin JP, Behrman RE. Development of novel combination therapies. N Engl J Med 2011;364:985-7.
35. Locock L, Smith L. Personal bene fit, or bene fiting others? Deciding whether to take part in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2011;8:85-93.