Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: A comparison of trial designs

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

Volumn 71, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1107-1114

  Jaki, Thomas ^a   Clive, Sally ^b   Weir, Christopher J ^c  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3 + 3 design; Bayesian method; Clinical trial, Phase I; Continual reassessment method; CRM; Curve free

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ALGORITHM; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER STAGING; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84877926031     PISSN: 03445704     EISSN: 14320843     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-012-2059-8     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Joffe S, Miller FG (2006) Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 24:2987-2990
2. Carter SK (1973) Study design principles for the clinical evaluation of new drugs as developed by the chemotherapy programme of the National Cancer Institute. In: Staquet MJ (ed) The design of clinical trials in cancer therapy. Futura Publishing Co, Mount Kisco, pp 242-289
3. Storer BE (1989) Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45:925-937
4. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L (1990) Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46:33-48
5. O'Quigley J, Chevret S (1991) Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: a review and results of a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 10:1647-1664
6. Whitehead J, Thygesen H, Whitehead A (2010) A Bayesian dose-finding procedure for phase I clinical trials based only on the assumption of monotonicity. Stat Med 29:1808-1824
7. Geller NL (1984) Design of phase I and II clinical trials in cancer: a statistician's view. Cancer Invest 2:483-491
8. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (2012) http://www.ecog.org/general/ ctc.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2012
9. National Cancer Institute (2012) Common terminology criteria for adverse events v4.0. http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/ctc.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2012
10. Postel-Vinay S, Gomez-Roca C, Molife LR et al (2011) Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities? J Clin Oncol 29:1728-1735
11. Hansen HH, Selawry OS, Muggia FM et al (1971) Clinical studies with 1-(2-chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (NSC 79037). Cancer Res 31:223-227
12. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL (2009) Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:708-720
13. Collins JM, Zaharko DS, Dedrick RL et al (1986) Potential roles for preclinical pharmacology in phase I clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 70:73-80
14. Tighiouart M, Rogatko A, Babb JS (2005) Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials: dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 24:2183-2196
15. Rinaldi DA, Kuhn JG, Burris HA et al (1999) A phase I evaluation of multitargeted antifolate (MTA, LY231514), administered every 21 days, utilizing the modified continual reassessment method for dose escalation. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44:372-380
16. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S (1998) Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 17:1103-1120
17. Dees EC, Whitfield LR, Grove WR et al (2000) A Phase I and pharmacologic evaluation of the DNA intercalator CI-958 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 6:3885-3894
18. Clive S, Webb DJ, MacLellan J et al (2001) Forearm blood flow and local responses to peptide vasodilators: a NOVEL pharmacodynamic measure in the phase I trial of Antagonist G, a neuropeptide growth factor antagonist. Clin Cancer Res 7:3071-3078
19. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W et al (2007) Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 25:4982-4986
20. Simon RM, Freidlin B, Rubinstein LV et al (1997) Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1138-1147
21. Gadgeel SM, Wozniak A, Boinpally RR et al (2005) Phase I clinical trial of BMS-247550, a derivative of epothilone B, using accelerated titration 2B design. Clin Cancer Res 11:6233-6239
22. Tighiouart M, Rogatko A (2006) Dose finding in oncology - parametric methods. In: Gail M, Krickeberg K, Samet J, Tsiatis A, Wong W (eds) Dose finding in drug development. Springer, New York, pp 59-70
23. Neuenschwander B, Branson M, Gsponer T (2008) Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Stat Med 27:2420-2439
24. Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S (1995) Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 14:1149-1161
25. Zohar S, Chevret S (2001) The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Stat Med 20:2827-2843
26. Cheung YK, Chappell R (2000) Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56:1177-1182
27. Gasparini M, Eisele J (2000) A curve-free methods for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 56:609-615
28. O'Quigley J, Paoletti X, Maccario J (2002) Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics 3:51-56
29. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER et al (2008) A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials 5:465-477
30. Mo Q (2012) http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CRM/. Accessed 10 Dec 2012
31. Shen LZ, O'Quigley J (1996) Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometrika 83:395-405
32. Calvert AH, Plummer R (2008) The development of Phase I cancer trial methodologies: the use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic end points sets the scene for Phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 14:3664-3669
33. Mandrekar SJ, Cui Y, Sargent DJ (2007) An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med 26:2317-2330
34. Zhang W, Sargent DJ, Mandrekar S (2006) An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 25:2365-2383
35. Whitehead J, Thygesen H, Whitehead A (2011) Bayesian procedures for phase I/II clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of drug combinations. Stat Med 30:1952-1970