The current design of oncology phase I clinical trials: Progressing from algorithms to statistical models

Chinese Clinical Oncology

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Braun, Thomas M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose finding; Dose limiting toxicity (DLT); Maximum tolerated dose (MTD)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922239156     PISSN: 23043865     EISSN: 23043873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2014.02.01     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989;45:925-37.
2. Lin Y, Shih WJ. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics 2001;2:203-15.
3. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs. Stat Med 1998;17:1537-49.
4. Oron AP, Hoff PD. The k-in-a-row up-and-down design, revisited. Stat Med 2009;28:1805-20.
5. Ivanova A, Montazer-Haghighi A, Mohanty SG, et al. Improved up-and-down designs for phase I trials. Stat Med 2003;22:69-82.
6. Ivanova A, Flournoy N, Chung Y. Cumulative cohort design for dose-finding. J Stat Plan Inference 2007;137:2316-27.
7. 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.
8. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials 2006;3:57-71.
9. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998;17:1103-20.
10. Ji Y, Liu P, Li Y, Bekele BN. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clin Trials 2010;7:653-63.
11. Ji Y, Wang SJ. 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;31:1785-91.
12. Ivanova A. Escalation, group and A + B designs for dose-finding trials. Stat Med 2006;25:3668-78.
13. Durham SD, Flournoy N. Up-and-down designs. I. Stationary treatment distributions. Lect Notes Monogr Ser 1995;25:139-57.
14. Durham S, Flournoy N. Up-and-down designs. II. Exact treatment moments. Lect Notes Monogr Ser 1995;25:158-78.
15. Giovagnoli A, Pintacuda N. Properties of frequency distributions induced by general 'up-and-down' methods for estimating quantiles. J Stat Plan Inference 1998;74:51-63.
16. Stylianou M, Flournoy N. Dose finding using the biased coin up-and-down design and isotonic regression. Biometrics 2002;58:171-7.
17. Liu S, Cai C, Ning J. Up-and-down designs for phase I clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2013;36:218-27.
18. Dixon WJ, Mood AM. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J Am Stat Assoc 1948;43:109-26.
19. Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 1994;4:147-64.
20. Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1995;14:1149-61.
21. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996;52:673-84.
22. Chen Z, Zhao Y, Cui Y, et al. Kowalski. Methodology and application of adaptive and sequential approaches in contemporary clinical trials. J Probab Stat 2012;2012:1-20.
23. Lee SM, Cheung YK. Calibration of prior variance in the Bayesian continual reassessment method. Stat Med 2011;30:2081-9.
24. Zhang J, Braun TM, Taylor JM. Adaptive prior variance calibration in the Bayesian continual reassessment method. Stat Med 2013;32:2221-34.
25. Chu PL, Lin Y, Shih WJ. Unifying CRM and EWOC designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Stat Plan Inference 2009;139:1146-63.
26. 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;5:465-77.
27. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000;56:1177-82.
28. Braun TM. Generalizing the TITE-CRM to adapt for early- and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med 2006;25:2071-83.
29. Bekele BN, Ji Y, Shen Y, et al. Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks. Biostatistics 2008;9:442-57.
30. Yuan Y, Yin G. Robust EM continual reassessment method in oncology dose finding. J Am Stat Assoc 2011;106:818-31.
31. Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat Med 2011;30:2070-80.
32. Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials 2012;9:303-13.
33. Tighiouart M, Cook-Wiens G, Rogatko A. Escalation with overdose control using ordinal toxicity grades for cancer phase I clinical trials. J Probab Stat 2012;2012:1-18.
34. Iasonos A, Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs. Clin Trials 2011;8:370-9.
35. Braun TM. The bivariate continual reassessment method. extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:240-56.
36. Zhong W, Koopmeiners JS, Carlin BP. A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy. Stat Med 2012;31:3885-95.
37. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004;60:684-93.
38. Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 2006;62:777-84.
39. Thall PF, Millikan RE, Mueller P, et al. Dose-finding with two agents in Phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 2003;59:487-96.
40. Wang K, Ivanova A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics 2005;61:217-22.
41. Braun TM, Wang S. A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of cancer therapeutic agents. Biometrics 2010;66:805-12.
42. Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 2009;58:211-24.
43. Yin G, Yuan Y. A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 2009;65:866-75.
44. Braun TM, Jia N. A generalized continual reassessment method for two-agent Phase I trials. Stat Biopharm Res 2013;5:105-15.
45. Wages NA, Conaway MR, O'Quigley J. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering. Biometrics 2011;67:1555-63.
46. Wages NA, Conaway MR, O'Quigley J. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations. Clin Trials 2011;8:380-9.
47. Braun TM, Yuan Z, Thall PF. Determining a maximum-tolerated schedule of a cytotoxic agent. Biometrics 2005;61:335-43.
48. Braun TM, Thall PF, Nguyen H, et al. Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clin Trials 2007;4:113-24.
49. Liu CA, Braun TM. Parametric non-mixture cure models for schedule finding of therapeutic agents. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 2009;58:225-36.
50. Zhang J, Braun TM. A Phase I Bayesian adaptive design to simultaneously optimize dose and schedule assignments both between and within patients. J Am Stat Assoc 2013;108(503).
51. Thall PF, Nguyen HQ, Braun TM, et al. Using joint utilities of the times to response and toxicity to adaptively optimize schedule-dose regimes. Biometrics 2013;69:673-82.
52. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, et al. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4982-6.
53. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:708-20.
54. 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;22:238-43.
55. de Lima M, Giralt S, Thall PF, et al. Maintenance therapy with low-dose azacitidine after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for recurrent acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome: a dose and schedule finding study. Cancer 2010;116:5420-31.
56. Chevret S. eds. Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments. Wiley and Sons, 2006.
57. Cheung YK. eds. Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. New York: Chapman. & Hall/CRC Press, 2011.
58. Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, et al. eds. Muller. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011.
59. Yin G. eds. Clinical Trial Design: Bayesian and Frequentist Adaptive Methods. Wiley and Sons, 2012.
60. Kuen Cheung Y. Sample size formulae for the Bayesian continual reassessment method. Clin Trials 2013;10:852-61.
61. Azriel D, Mandel M, Rinott Y. The treatment versus experimentation dilemma in dose finding studies. J Stat Plan Inference 2011;141:2759-68.
62. Oron AP, Azriel D, Hoff PD. Dose-finding designs: the role of convergence properties. Int J Biostat 2011;7:Article 39.