A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase i clinical trials

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Boonstra, Philip S ^a   Shen, Jincheng ^a   Taylor, Jeremy M G ^a   Braun, Thomas M ^a   Griffith, Kent A ^a   Daignault, Stephanie ^a   Kalemkerian, Gregory P ^a   Lawrence, Theodore S ^a   Schipper, Matthew J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DOSE EXPANSION COHORT; DRUG DOSE INCREASE; EVALUATION STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; PATIENT SELECTION; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84930412755     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju429     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials. 2006;3(1):57-71.
3. Srokowski TP, Liebmann JE, Modiano MR, et al. Pixantrone dimaleate in combination with fludarabine, dexamethasone, and rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non?Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2011;117(22):5067-5073.
4. Gordon MS, Sweeney CJ, Mendelson DS, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AMG 102, a fully human hepatocyte growth factor-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in a first-in-human study of patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(2):699-710.
5. Isambert F, Freyer G, Zanetta S, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of intravenous aflibercept in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(6):1743-1750.
6. Alsina M, Trudel S, Furman RR, et al. A phase I single-agent study of twice-weekly consecutive-day dosing of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma or lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(17):4830-4840.
7. Haluska P, Worden F, Olmos D, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of the anti-IGF-1R monoclonal antibody figitumumab in patients with refractory adrenocortical carcinoma. Cancer Chemoth Pharm. 2010;65(4):765-773.
8. Diamond, JR, Bastos BR, Hansen RJ, et al. Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic study of ENMD-2076, a novel angiogenic and Aurora kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(4):849-860.
9. 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.
10. Iasonos A, O'Quigley J. Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(33):4014-4021.
11. Dahlberg SE, Shapiro GI, Clark JW, Johnson BE. Evaluation of statistical designs in phase I expansion cohorts: The Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(7):dju163 doi:10.1093/jnci/dju163.
12. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics. 2004;60(3):684-693.
13. Braun TM. The bivariate CRM: Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(3):240-256.
14. Yuan Y, Yin G. Bayesian dose-finding by jointly modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser C. 2009;58(5):719-736.
15. 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.
16. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky Rl, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(20):1637-1643.
17. Joffe S, Miller FG. Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):2987-2990.
18. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(31):4982-4986.
19. Rosenberger WF, Haines LM. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med. 2002;21(18):2757-2770.
20. Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, Rubinstein LV, Christian MC, Simon RM. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med. 1994;13(18):1799-1806.
21. 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(14):1785-1791.
22. Eisenhauer EA, O' Dwyer PJ, Christian M, Humphrey JS. Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(3):684-684.
23. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1537-1549.
24. Doussau A, Asselain B, Le Deley MC, et al. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: Comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(4):657-665.
25. R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed July 7, 2014.
26. Cheung, K: dfcrm: Dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. package version 0.2-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dfcrm. Accessed July 7, 2014.