Adaptive designs for dual-agent phase I dose-escalation studies

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 277-288

  Harrington, Jennifer A ^a,c   Wheeler, Graham M ^b   Sweeting, Michael J ^b   Mander, Adrian P ^b   Jodrell, Duncan I ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c CANCER RESEARCH UK CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

5 AZA 2' DEOXYCYTIDINE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; AZACITIDINE; CISPLATIN; CYTARABINE; GEMCITABINE; IMATINIB; MK 0752; NILOTINIB; RECOMBINANT INTERFERON; RUBITECAN;

ACUTE GRANULOCYTIC LEUKEMIA; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; DRUG EFFICACY; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; LEUKEMIA REMISSION; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METASTATIC MELANOMA; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME; PANCREAS CANCER; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; TUMOR REGRESSION;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84877584944     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.35     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Marusyk, A., Almendro, V.Polyak, K. Intra-tumour heterogeneity; A looking glass for cancer? Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 323-334 (2012
2. Dancey, J., E.Chen, H., X. Strategies for optimizing combinations of molecularly targeted anticancer agents. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 649-659 (2006
3. Masters, J., R.Köberle, B. Curing metastatic cancer: Lessons from testicular germ-cell tumours. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 517-525 (2003
4. Meropol, N., J., Kris, M., G.Winer, E., P. The American Society of Clinical Oncology's blueprint for transforming clinical and translational cancer research. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 690-691 (2011
5. Park, S., R., Davis, M., Doroshow, J., H. &, Kummar, S. Safety and feasibility of targeted agent combinations in solid tumours. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 154-168 (2013
6. Al-Lazikani, B., Banerji, U.Workman, P. Combinatorial drug therapy for cancer in the post-genomic era. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 679-692 (2012
7. Dragalin, V. Adaptive designs: Terminology and classification. Drug Inf. J. 40, 425-435 (2006
8. Sweeting, M., J.Mander, A., P. Escalation strategies for combination therapy phase I trials. Pharm. Stat. 11, 258-266 (2012
9. Berry, D., A. Adaptive clinical trials in oncology. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 199-207 (2011
10. Ivy, S., P., Siu, L., L., Garrett-Mayer, E. &, Rubinstein, L. 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. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 1726-1736 (2010
11. LoRusso, P., M., Boerner, S., A.Seymour, L. An, overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 1710-1718 (2010
12. Le Tourneau, C., Lee, J., J.Siu, L., L. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 708-720 (2009
13. Babb, J., S.Rogatko, A. In Advances in Clinical Trial Biostatistics (ed. Gellar, N., L.) 1-40 (CRC Press, 2003
14. Storer, B., E. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45, 925-937 (1989
15. Faries, D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Stat. 4, 147-164 (1994
16. O'Quigley, J.Reiner, E. A stopping rule for the continuous reassessment method. Biometrika 85, 741-748 (1998
17. Zohar, S.Chevret, S. The continual reassessment method: Comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Stat. Med. 20, 2827-2843 (2001
18. Cheung, Y., K.Chappell, R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56, 1177-1182 (2000
19. Thall, P., F.Lee, S., J. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: Methods based on toxicity. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 13, 251-261 (2003
20. O'Quigley, J., Pepe, M.Fisher, L. Continual reassessment method; A practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33-48 (1990
21. Carter, S. in The Design of Clinical Trials in Cancer Therapy (ed. Staquet, M.) 242-289 (Futura Publishing Co., 1972
22. Babb, J., Rogatko, A.Zacks, S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: Efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat. Med. 17, 1103-1120 (1998
23. O'Quigley, J.Zohar, S. Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies. Br. J. Cancer 94, 609-613 (2006
24. Kang, S.-H.Ahn, C., W. An investigation of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase 1 cancer clinical trials. Drug Inf. J. 36, 865-873 (2002
25. Iasonos, A.et al.The impact of non-drug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 5179-5187 (2012
26. Braun, T., M.Alonzo, T., A. Beyond the 3+3 method: Expanded algorithms for dose- escalation in phase I oncology trials of two agents. Clin. Trials 8, 247-259 (2011
27. Flournoy, N. in Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics (eds Gatsonis, C., Hodges, J., S., Kass, R., E. &, Singpurwalla, N., D.) 324-336 (Springer-Verlag, 1993
28. Legedza, A., T.Ibrahim, J., G. Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: Prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method. Stat. Med. 20, 867-882 (2001
29. Speigelhalter, D., J., Abrams, K., R.Myles, J., P. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation (John WileySons, 2004
30. Rosenberger, W., F., Canfield, G., C., Perevozskaya, I., Haines, L., M.Hausner, P. Development of interactive software for Bayesian optimal phase 1 clinical trial design. Drug Inf. J. 39, 89-98 (2005
31. Thall, P., F., Millikan, R., E., Mueller, P.Lee, S., J. Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 59, 487-496 (2003
32. Thall, P., F. Bayesian models and decision algorithms for complex early phase clinical trials. Stat. Sci. 25, 227-244 (2010
33. Iasonos, A.O'Quigley, J. Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method. Stat. Med. 31, 4321-4336 (2012
34. Goodman, S., N., Zahurak, M., L.Piantadosi, S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med. 14, 1149-1161 (1995
35. Paoletti, X.et al.Using the continual reassessment method: Lessons learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study. Eur. J. Cancer 42, 1362-1368 (2006
36. Mick, R.Ratain, M., J. Model-guided determination of maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials: Evidence for increased precision. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 85, 217-223 (1993
37. Piantadosi, S.Liu, G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat. Med. 15, 1605-1618 (1996
38. Neuenschwander, B., Branson, M.Gsponer, T. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Stat. Med. 27, 2420-2439 (2008
39. Braun, T., M., Thall, P., F., Nguyen, H. &, de, Lima, M. Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clin. Trials 4, 113-124 (2007
40. Normolle, D.Lawrence, T. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 4426-4433 (2006
41. Tevaarwerk, A.et al.Phase I study of continuous MKC-1 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid malignancies using the modified Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) dose escalation design. Invest. New Drugs 30, 1039-1045 (2012
42. Parulekar, W., R.Eisenhauer, E., A. Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: Theory and practice. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96, 990-997 (2004
43. Fox, E., Curt, G., A.Balis, F., M. Clinical trial design for target-based therapy. Oncologist 7, 401-409 (2002
44. 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. 29, 1077-1083 (2010
45. Rodon, J., Perez, J.Kurzrock, R. Combining targeted therapies: Practical issues to consider at the bench and bedside. Oncologist 15, 37-50 (2010
46. U., S. Department of HealthHuman Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0 National Institutes of Health [online], ftp://ftp1.nci.nih. gov/pub/cacore/EVS/CTCAE/Archive/CTCAE-4.02-2009-09-15-QuickReference-8.5x11. pdf (2009
47. Lee, S., M., Hershman, D., L., Martin, P., Leonard, J., P.Cheung, Y., K. Toxicity burden score; A novel approach to summarize multiple toxic effects. Ann. Oncol. 23, 537-541 (2012
48. Yuan, Z., Chappell, R.Bailey, H. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades; A Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics 63, 173-179 (2007
49. Simon, R.et al.Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1138-1147 (1997
50. Lee, S., M., Cheng, B.Cheung, Y., K. Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints. Biostatistics 12, 386-398 (2011
51. Van Meter, E., M., Garrett-Mayer, E. &, Bandyopadhyay, D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat. Med. 30, 2070-2080 (2011
52. Gasparini, M., Bailey, S.Neuenschwander, B. Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 59, 543-544 (2010
53. Rosenberger, W., F.Haines, L., M. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials; A review. Stat. Med. 21, 2757-2770 (2002
54. Rogatko, A.et al.Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 4982-4986 (2007
55. Onar, A., Kocak, M.Boyett, J., M. Continual reassessment method vs. traditional empirically based design: Modifications motivated by phase, I trials in pediatric oncology by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 437-455 (2009
56. 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 31, 259-270 (2010
57. Hamberg, P.Verweij, J. Phase I drug combination trial design: Walking the tightrope. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4441-4443 (2009
58. Lee, B., L.Fan, S., K. A two-dimensional search algorithm for dose-finding trials of two agents. J. Biopharm. Stat. 22, 802-818 (2012
59. Lee, S., J.et al.Optimal modeling for phase I design of a two drug combination-results of a phase I study of cisplatin with 9-nitrocamptothecin. Invest. New Drugs 26, 541-551 (2008
60. Wang, K.Ivanova, A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics 61, 217-222 (2005
61. Kramar, A., Lebecq, A.Candalh, E. Continual reassessment methods in phase I trials of the combination of two drugs in oncology. Stat. Med. 18, 1849-1864 (1999
62. Yin, G.Yuan, Y. A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 65, 866-875 (2009
63. Yin, G.Yuan, Y. Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 58, 211-224 (2009
64. Su, Z. A two-stage algorithm for designing phase, I cancer clinical trials for two new molecular entities. Contemp. Clin. Trials 31, 105-107 (2010
65. Yuan, Y.Yin, G. Bayesian phase I/II adaptively randomized oncology trials with combined drugs. Ann. Appl. Stat. 5, 924-942 (2011
66. MD Anderson Cancer Center and Tessella.ToxFinder v1.1.0. Two-agent toxicity-based dose finder [online], https://biostatistics.mdanderson.org/ SoftwareDownload/SingleSoftware.aspx?Software-Id=14 (2005
67. Bailey, S., Neuenschwander, B., Laird, G. &, Branson, M. A Bayesian case study in oncology phase I combination dose-finding using logistic regression with covariates. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 469-484 (2009
68. Conaway, M., R., Dunbar, S.Peddada, S., D. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics 60, 661-669 (2004
69. Wages, N., A., Conaway, M., R.O'Quigley, J. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering. Biometrics 67, 1555-1563 (2011
70. Wages, N., A., Conaway, M., R.O'Quigley, J. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations. Clin. Trials 8, 380-389 (2011
71. Huang, X., Biswas, S., Oki, Y., Issa, J., P. &, Berry, D., A. A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies. Biometrics 63, 429-436 (2007
72. Biswas, S., Liu, D., D., Lee, J., J.Berry, D., A. Bayesian clinical trials at the University of Texas, M., D. Anderson Cancer Center. Clinical Trials 6, 205-216 (2009
73. Mandrekar, S., J., Cui, Y.Sargent, D., J. An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat. Med. 26, 2317-2330 (2007
74. Zhang, W., Sargent, D., J.Mandrekar, S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat. Med. 25, 2365-2383 (2006
75. Whitehead, J., Thygesen, H.Whitehead, A. Bayesian procedures for phase I/II clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of drug combinations. Stat. Med. 30, 1952-1970 (2011
76. Whitehead, J.et al.A novel phase I/IIa design for early phase oncology studies and its application in the evaluation of MK-0752 in pancreatic cancer. Stat. Med. 31, 1931-1943 (2012
77. Houede, N., Thall, P., F., Nguyen, H., Paoletti, X. &, Kramar, A. Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials. Biometrics 66, 532-540 (2010
78. Nguyen, H. U2OET. https://biostatistics.mdanderson.org/SoftwareDownload/ SingleSoftware.aspx?Software-Id=77 (2009
79. Dragalin, V., Fedorov, V.Wu, Y. Adaptive designs for selecting drug combinations based on efficacy-toxicity response. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 138, 352-373 (2008
80. Braun, T., M.Wang, S. A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of, cancer therapeutic agents. Biometrics 66, 805-812 (2010
81. Gasparini, M. General classes of multiple binary regression models in dose finding problems for combination therapies. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 62, 115-133 (2013
82. Yuan, Y.Yin, G. Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials. Stat. Med. 30, 2098-2108 (2011
83. U., S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Codevelopment of two or more unmarketed investigational drugs for use in combination [online], http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM236669.pdf (2010
84. Division of Quantitative Sciences - Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Software Download Site [online], https://biostatistics.mdanderson.org/SoftwareDownload/.
85. Berry, S., M., Carlin, B., P., Lee, J., J.Muller, P. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2010
86. Berry, S., M., Carlin, B., P., Lee, J., J.Muller, P. Online supplementary information for Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials (Chapman Hall/CRC Press, 2010) http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~brad/data3.html
87. U., S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry; Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics [online], http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/DrugsGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf (2010
88. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design [online], http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/ document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500003616.pdf (2007
89. Chevret, S. Bayesian adaptive clinical trials; A, dream for statisticians only? Stat. Med. 31, 1002-1013 (2012
90. Gaydos, B.et al.Adaptive dose-response studies. Drug Inf. J. 40, 451-461 (2006
91. Gaydos, B.et al.Perspective on adaptive designs: 4 years Europeans Medicines Agency reflection paper, 1 year draft US FDA guidance-where are we now? Clin. Invest. 2, 235-240 (2012
92. Patlak, M., Balogh, E.Nass, S., J. Facilitating Collaborations, to, Develop, Combination, Investigational Cancer Therapies: Workshop Summary 11-36 (The National Academies Press, 2012
93. Gönen, M. Bayesian clinical trials: No more excuses. Clin. Trials 6, 203-204 (2009