A Phase I/II adaptive design to determine the optimal treatment regimen from a set of combination immunotherapies in high-risk melanoma

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 41, Issue , 2015, Pages 172-179

  Wages, Nolan A ^a   Slingluff, Craig L ^a   Petroni, Gina R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological agent; Immunotherapy; Oncology; Optimal dose; Phase I II

Indexed keywords

PEPTIDE VACCINE; TOLL LIKE RECEPTOR AGONIST; CANCER VACCINE; IMMUNOLOGICAL ADJUVANT; TOLL LIKE RECEPTOR;

ARTICLE; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER IMMUNIZATION; HUMAN; IMMUNE RESPONSE; MELANOMA; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PATIENT SAFETY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); SIMULATION; STUDY DESIGN; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; AGONISTS; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; IMMUNOTHERAPY; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SKIN NEOPLASMS;

ADJUVANTS, IMMUNOLOGIC; CANCER VACCINES; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; IMMUNOTHERAPY; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MELANOMA; NEOPLASM STAGING; RESEARCH DESIGN; SKIN NEOPLASMS; TOLL-LIKE RECEPTORS;

EID: 84922262186     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: 15592030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.01.016     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Braun T. The current design of oncology phase I clinical trials: progressing from algorithms to statistical models. Chin Clin Oncol 2014, 3:2.
2. Yin G. Clinical trial design: Bayesian and frequentist adaptive methods 2012, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
3. Thall P.F., Nguyen H.Q., Braun T., Qazilbash M.H. Using joint utilities of the times to response and toxicity to adaptively optimize schedule-dose regimes. Biometrics 2013, 69:673-682.
4. Wages N.A., Conaway M.R. Phase I/II adaptive design for drug combination oncology trials. Stat Med 2014, 33:1990-2003.
5. Zang Y., Lee J.J., Yuan Y. Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. Clin Trials 2014, 11:319-327.
6. Gao J., Bernatchez C., Sharma P., Radvanyi L.G., Hwu P. Advances in the development of cancer immunotherapies. Trends Immunol 2012, 34:90-98.
7. Marshall N.A., Galvin K.C., Corcoran A.M., Boon L., Millis K.H. Immunotherapy with PI3K inhibitor and Toll-like receptor agonist induces IFN-gamma+IL-17+ polyfunctional T cells that mediate rejection of murine tumors. Cancer Res 2012, 72:581-591.
8. Sikora A.G., Jaffarzad N., Hailemichael Y., Gelbard A., Stonier S.W., Schluns K.S., et al. IFN-alpha enhances peptide vaccine-induced CD8+ T cell numbers, effector function, and antitumor activity. J Immunol 2009, 182:7398-7407.
9. Petroni G. Design issues for early-stage clinical trials. Immunotherapy of cancer 2006, 479-485. Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey. M. Disis (Ed.).
10. FDA USDoHaHS, Administration FaD, Research CfBEa Guidance for industry clinical considerations for therapeutic cancer vaccines [cited 2011 October 2011]. Available from:. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInfor-mation/Guidances/default.htm.
11. Rahma O.E., Gammoh E., Simon R.M., Khleif S.M. Is the "3+3" dose-escalation phase I clinical trial design suitable for therapeutic cancer vaccine development? A recommendation for alternative design. Clin Cancer Res 2014, 20:4758-4767.
12. Simon R., Steinberg S., Hamilton M. Clinical trial designs for the early clinical development of therapeutic cancer vaccines. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:1848-1854.
13. Korn E. Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:977-978.
14. Parulekar W.R., Eisenhauer E.A. Phase I trial design for solid tumors studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:970-977.
15. Le Tourneau C., Lee J.J., Siu L.L. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:708-720.
16. LoRusso P., Boerner S., Seymour L. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res 2010, 16:1710-1718.
17. Hunsberger S., Rubinstein L., Dancey J., Korn E. Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint. Stat Med 2005, 24:2171-2181.
18. Zhang W., Sargent D., Mandrekar S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 2006, 25:2365-2383.
19. Polley M.Y., Cheung Y.K. Two-stage designs for dose-finding trials with a biologic endpoint using stepwise tests. Biometrics 2008, 64:232-241.
20. Wages N.A., Tait C. Seamless phase I/II adaptive design for oncology trials of molecularly targeted agents. J Biopharm Stat June 6 2014, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1080/10543406.2014.920873.
21. Cannistra S. Challenges and pitfalls of combining targeted agents in phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:3665-3667.
22. Slingluff C.L., Petroni G.R., Chianese-Bullock K.A., Smolkin M.E., Ross M.I., Haas N.B., et al. A randomized multicenter trial of the effects of melanoma-associated helper peptides and cyclophosphamide on the immunogenicity of a multipeptide melanoma vaccine. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:2924-2932.
23. O'Quigley J., Pepe M., Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990, 46:33-48.
24. Wages N.A., Conaway M.R., O'Quigley J. Dose finding design for multi-drug combinations. Clin Trials 2011, 8:380-389.
25. Lee S.M., Cheung Y.K. Mdel calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials 2009, 6:227-238.
26. Thall P.F., Nguyen H.Q. Adaptive randomization to improve utility-based dose-finding with bivariate ordinal outcomes. J Biopharm Stat 2012, 22:785-801.
27. Slingluff C.L., Petroni G.R., Olson W.C., Smolkin M.E., Ross M.I., Haas N.B., et al. Effect of GM-CSF on circulating CD8+ and CD4+ T cell responses to a multipeptide melanoma vaccine: outcome of a multicenter randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15:7036-7044.
28. Bechhofer RESTJaGDM Design and analysis of experiments for statistical selection, screening, and multiple comparisons 1995, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
29. O'Quigley J., Zohar S. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat 2010, 5:1013-1025.
30. R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing 2013, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [URL http://www.R-project.org].
31. Cheung K. dfcrm: dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. R package version 0.2-2 2013 2013, [http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dfcrm].
32. O'Quigley J., Conaway M.R. Extended model-based designs for more complex phase I clinical trials. Stat Med 2011, 30:2062-2069.
33. Jaki T., Clive S., Weir C.J. Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: a comparison of trial designs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013, 71:1107-1114.
34. Iasonos A., O'Quigley J. Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2014, 32:2505-2511.
35. Slingluff C.L., Petroni G.R., Chianese-Bullock K.A., Smolkin M.E., Hibbitts S., Murphy C., et al. Immunologic and clinical outcomes of a randomized phase II trial of two multipeptide vaccines for melanoma in the adjuvant setting. Clin Cancer Res 2007, 13:6386-6395.