Phase 1 trial design: Is 3 + 3 the best?

Cancer Control

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 200-208

  Hansen, Aaron R ^a,b   Graham, Donna M ^a,b   Pond, Gregory R ^c,d   Siu, Lillian L ^a,b  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RESEARCH; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; MONOTHERAPY; PATIENT SAFETY; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; SAMPLE SIZE; STUDY DESIGN; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84903121482     PISSN: 10732748     EISSN: 15262359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107327481402100304     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989:45(3):925-937.
2. Dixon WJ, Mood AM. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1948;43(241):109-126.
3. Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1999;30(3):303-315.
4. Simon R, Rubinstein L, Arbuck SG, et al. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(15):1138-1147.
5. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, et al. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007 2007;25(31):4982-4986.
6. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(10):708-720.
7. Parulekar WR, Eisenhauer EA. Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(13):990-997.
8. Le Tourneau C, Razak AR, Gan HK, et al. Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: a review of the literature. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(10):1468-1475.
9. Eisenhauer EA, Twelves C, Buyse ME. Phase 1 Cancer Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
10. Collins JM, Zaharko DS, Dedrick RL, et al. Potential roles for preclinical pharmacology in phase I clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep. 1986;70(1):73-80.
11. Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med. 1995;14(11):1149-1161.
12. Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 1994;4(2):147-164.
13. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17(10):1103-1120.
14. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000;56(4):1177-1182.
15. Doussau A, Thiébaut R, Paoletti X. Dose-finding design using mixed-effect proportional odds model for longitudinal graded toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(30):5430-5447.
16. Yin G, Zheng S, Xu J. Fractional dose-finding methods with late-onset toxicity in phase I clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2013;23(4):856-870.
17. 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.
18. Ji Y, Wang S-J. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(14):1785-1791.
19. Mick R, Ratain MJ. Model-guided determination of maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials: evidence for increased precision. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(3):217-223.
20. Westblade LF, Jennemann R, Branda JA, et al. Multicenter study evaluating the Vitek MS system for identification of medically important yeasts. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(7):2267-2272.
21. Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat Med. 2011;30(17):2070-2080.
22. Jardim DL, Hess KR, Lorusso PM, et al. Predictive value of phase I trials for safety in later trials and final approved dose: analysis of 61 approved cancer drugs. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(2):281-288.
23. O'Quigley J. Another look at two phase I clinical trial designs. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2683-2692.
24. Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, et al. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med. 1994;13(18):1799-1806.
25. Neuenschwander B, Branson M, Gsponer T. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Stat Med. 2008;27(13):2420-2439.
26. Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, et al. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010.
27. DeMichele A, Berry DA, Zujewski J, et al. Developing safety criteria for introducing new agents into neoadjuvant trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(11):2817-2823.
28. Manji A, Brana I, Amir E, et al. Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(33):4260-4267.
29. Eckhardt S, Siu L, Clark G, et al. The continual reassessment method (CRM) for dose escalation in phase I trials in San Antonio does not result in more rapid study completion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinincal Oncology, Chicago, Illinois, 1999. Abstract 627.
30. Walling J, Zervos P, McCarthy S, et al. Dose escalation methodology in phase I clinical trials: a comparison of the modified continual reassessment method (MCRM) and a traditional method. Experience with the multitargeted antifolate (MTA). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinincal Oncology, Chicago, Illinois, 1997.
31. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, et al. 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(5):465-477.
32. Le Tourneau C, Stathis A, Vidal L, et al. Choice of starting dose for molecularly targeted agents evaluated in first-in-human phase I cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(8):1401-1407.
33. Le Tourneau C, Gan HK, Razak AR, et al. Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents. PloS One. 2012;7(12):e51039.
34. Sweeting M, Mander A, Sabin T. Bcrm: Bayesian continual reassessment method designs for phase I dose-finding trials. J Stat Software. 2013;54(13). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v54/i13/paper. Accessed April 11, 2014.
35. Postel-Vinay S, Gomez-Roca C, Molife LR, et al. Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1728-1735.
36. Postel-Vinay S, Le Tourneau C, Olmos D, et al. Towards new methods for the determination of dose limiting toxicities and recommended dose of molecularly targeted agents. Presented at the European Cancer Congress (ECCO-ESMO-ESTRO), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
37. Normolle D, Lawrence T. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(27):4426-4433.
38. Muler JH, McGinn CJ, Normolle D, et al. Phase I trial using a time-to-event continual reassessment strategy for dose escalation of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine and radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):238-243.
39. Desai SP, Ben-Josef E, Normolle DP, et al. Phase I study of oxaliplatin, full-dose gemcitabine, and concurrent radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4587-4592.
40. Jain RK, Lee JJ, Hong D, et al. Phase I oncology studies: evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(4):1289-1297.
41. Zang Y, Lee JJ, Yuan Y. Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~yyuan/Software_release/TargetAgent/targetAgentDF.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2014.
42. Kummar S, Gutierrez M, Doroshow JH, Murgo AJ. Drug development in oncology: classical cytotoxics and molecularly targeted agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(1):15-26.
43. Goldie JH, Coldman AJ. A mathematic model for relating the drug sensitivity of tumors to their spontaneous mutation rate. Cancer Treat Rep. 1979;63(11-12):1727-1733.
44. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science. 2013;339(6127):1546-1558.
45. Dancey JE, Chen HX. Strategies for optimizing combinations of molecularly targeted anticancer agents. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(8):649-659.
46. Fidler IJ, Gersten DM, Hart IR. The biology of cancer invasion and metastasis. Adv Cancer Res. 1978;28:149-250.
47. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646-674.
48. Dy GK, Adjei AA. Understanding, recognizing, and managing toxicities of targeted anticancer therapies. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(4):249-279.
49. Park SR, Davis M, Doroshow JH, et al. Safety and feasibility of targeted agent combinations in solid tumours. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(3):154-168.
50. Huang X, Biswas S, Oki Y, et al. A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies. Biometrics. 2007;63(2):429-436.
51. Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics. 2006;62(3):777-787.
52. Thall PF, Millikan RE, Mueller P, et al. Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics. 2003;59(3):487-496.
53. Yuan Y, Yin G. Sequential continual reassessment method for two-dimensional dose finding. Stat Med. 2008;27(27):5664-5678.