Dose-finding design using mixed-effect proportional odds model for longitudinal graded toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 30, 2013, Pages 5430-5447

  Doussau, Adélaïde ^a,b,c,d   Thiébaut, Rodolphe ^a,b,c   Paoletti, Xavier ^d,e  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^d INSERM U900   (France)

^e INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

Continual reassessment method; Dose finding; Longitudinal; Ordinal; Proportional odds

Indexed keywords

AVISCUMINE;

ARTICLE; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSE TIME EFFECT RELATION; DRUG DOSE INCREASE; DRUG INDUCED DISEASE; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG TOLERABILITY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FATIGUE; HUMAN; LIVER TOXICITY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MIXED EFFECT PROPORTIONAL ODDS MODEL; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROBABILITY; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOLID TUMOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; DOSE FINDING; LONGITUDINAL; ORDINAL; PROPORTIONAL ODDS;

ADULT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PLANT PREPARATIONS; RIBOSOME INACTIVATING PROTEINS, TYPE 2; TOXINS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84897096376     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5960     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. National Cancer Institute UNIoH. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03, 2010. Available at: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm, Accessed November 26, 2012.
2. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45(3):925-37.
3. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. Journal of National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(10):708-20. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp079.
4. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46(1):33-48.
5. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52(2):673-84.
6. Doussau A, Asselain B, Le Deley MC, Geoerger B, Doz F, Vassal G, Paoletti X. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2012; 33(4):657-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.11.015.
7. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Seymour LK, Eisenhauer EA. Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). European Journal of Cancer 2008; 44(1):19-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.034.
8. Ratain MJ, Humphrey RW, Gordon GB, Fyfe G, Adamson PC, Fleming TR, Stadler WM, Berry DA, Peck CC. Recommended changes to oncology clinical trial design: revolution or evolution European Journal of Cancer 2008; 44(1):8-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.09.011.
9. Postel-Vinay S, Gomez-Roca C, Molife LR, Anghan B, Levy A, Judson I, De Bono J, Soria JC, Kaye S, Paoletti X. Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011; 29(13):1728-35. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.9236.
10. Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L, Arbuck SG, Collins J, Christian MC. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute 1997; 89(15):1138-47.
11. Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(17):2070-80. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4069.
12. Iasonos A, Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs. Clinical Trials 2011; 8(4):370-9. DOI: 10.1177/1740774511410732.
13. Paoletti X, Baron B, Schoffski P, Fumoleau P, Lacombe D, Marreaud S, Sylvester R. Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study. European Journal of Cancer 2006; 42(10):1362-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.051.
14. Chen Z, Krailo MD, Azen SP, Tighiouart M. A novel toxicity scoring system treating toxicity response as a quasi-continuous variable in Phase I clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2010; 31(5):473-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.05.010.
15. Ezzalfani M, Zohar S, Qin R, Mandrekar SJ, Deley MC. Dose-finding designs using a novel quasi-continuous endpoint for multiple toxicities. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32(16):2728-46.
16. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56(4):1177-82.
17. Benda N. Model-based approaches for time-dependent dose finding with repeated binary data. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(10):1096-106. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3845.
18. Bretz F, Pinheiro JC, Branson M. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics 2005; 61(3):738-48. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00344.x.
19. Schoffski P, Riggert S, Fumoleau P, Campone M, Bolte O, Marreaud S, Lacombe D, Baron B, Herold M, Zwierzina H, Wilhelm-Ogunbiyi K, Lentzen H, Twelves C. Phase I trial of intravenous aviscumine (rViscumin) in patients with solid tumors: a study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer New Drug Development Group. Annals of Oncology 2004; 15(12):1816-24. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh469.
20. Ezzet F, Whitehead J. A random effects model for ordinal responses from a crossover trial. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10(6):901-6. discussion 6-7.
21. Pedrono G, Thiebaut R, Alioum A, Lesprit P, Fritzell B, Levy Y, Chene G. A new endpoint definition improved clinical relevance and statistical power in a vaccine trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62(10):1054-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.014.
22. Rubin DB. Inference with missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63:581-92.
23. Arkenau HT, Olmos D, Ang JE, de Bono J, Judson I, Kaye S. Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for patients treated within the context of a phase I study: the Royal Marsden Hospital experience. British Journal of Cancer 2008; 98(6):1029-33. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604218.
24. Bachelot T, Ray-Coquard I, Catimel G, Ardiet C, Guastalla JP, Dumortier A, Chauvin F, Droz JP, Philip T, Clavel M. Multivariable analysis of prognostic factors for toxicity and survival for patients enrolled in phase I clinical trials. Annals of Oncology 2000; 11(2):151-6.
25. Italiano A, Massard C, Bahleda R, Vataire AL, Deutsch E, Magne N, Pignon JP, Vassal G, Armand JP, Soria JC. Treatment outcome and survival in participants of phase I oncology trials carried out from 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy. Annals of Oncology 2008; 19(4):787-92. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm548.
26. LoConte NK, Smith M, Alberti D, Bozeman J, Cleary JF, Setala AN, Wodtke G, Wilding G, Holen KD. Amongst eligible patients, age and comorbidity do not predict for dose-limiting toxicity from phase I chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacology 2010; 65(4):775-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00280-009-1084-8.
27. Molenberghs G, Verbeke G. Missing data concepts. In Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. Springer: New York, 2005.
28. 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):3012-28. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3682.
29. Zohar S, Chevret S. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20(19):2827-43. DOI: 10.1002/sim.920.
30. O'Quigley J, Reiner E. A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method. Biometrika 1998; 85(3):741-8.
31. Cheung YK. Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, 2011.
32. McLeish DL, Tosh D. Sequential designs in bioassay. Biometrics 1990; 46:103-16.
33. Molenberghs G, Verbeke G. The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). In Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. Springer: New York, 2005; 265-80.
34. Whitehead J. Bayesian decision procedures with application to dose-finding studies. Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine 1997; 11:201-8.
35. Bretz F, Dette H, Pinheiro JC. Practical considerations for optimal designs in clinical dose finding studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(7-8):731-42. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3802.
36. Senn S, Stevens L, Chaturvedi N. Repeated measures in clinical trials: simple strategies for analysis using summary measures. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19(6):861-77. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000330)19:6<861::AID-SIM407>3.0.CO;2-F.
37. Carriere I, Bouyer J. Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2002; 2:15.
38. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Wiley: New-York, 1987.
39. Shen LZ, O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method in dose finding studies. Biometrika 1996; 83:395-406.
40. Cheung YK. Coherence principles in dose-finding studies. Biometrika 2005; 92(4):863-73.
41. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Rusch V, Jaques D, Budach V, Langer C, Murphy B, Cumberlin R, Coleman CN, Rubin P. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Seminars of Radiation Oncology 2003; 13(3):176-81. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4296(03)00031-6.
42. Pye K, Whitehead A. A Bayesian approach to dose-finding studies for cancer therapies: incorporating later cycles of therapy [abstract]. In International Society for Clinical Biostatistics, editor. 33rd Annual Conference of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics: Bergen, Norway, 2012; 33.
43. Mauguen A, Le Deley MC, Zohar S. Dose-finding approach for dose escalation with overdose control considering incomplete observations. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(13):1584-94. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4128.
44. Zhang W, Sargent DJ, Mandrekar S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(14):2365-83. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2325.