Statistical controversies in clinical research: Requiem for the 3 + 3 design for phase I trials

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1808-1812

  Paoletti, Xavier ^a,b   Ezzalfani, M ^c   Le Tourneau, C ^c  

^a INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^b CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN EPIDEMIOLOGY AND POPULATION HEALTH   (France)

^c INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

Continual reassessment method; Dose finding; Efficiency; Targeted agents

Indexed keywords

3 + 3 DESIGN; ARTICLE; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; TOXICITY TESTING; ALGORITHM; DOSE RESPONSE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; PHARMACOLOGICAL BIOMARKER;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BIOMARKERS, PHARMACOLOGICAL; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84941636933     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv266     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 708-720.
2. Tighiouart M, Rogatko A, Babb JS. Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials. Dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2183-2196.
3. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with lateonset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56: 1177-1182.
4. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W et al. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4982-4986.
5. 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: 1401-1407.
6. O'Quigley J, Zohar S. Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies. Br J Cancer 2006; 94: 609-613.
7. Paoletti X, Buyse M. Statistical designs for first-in-man phase I cancer trials. In Eisenhauer EA, Twelves C, Buyse M (eds), Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 2015.
8. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45: 925-937.
9. Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L et al. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 1138-1147.
10. 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.
11. O'Quigley J, Reiner E. A Stopting rule for the continual reassesssment method. Biometrika 1998; 85: 7.
12. Paoletti X, Baron B, Schoffski P et al. Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 1362-1368.
13. Doussau A, Thiebaut 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: 5430-5447.
14. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ, Gamst A. Two-sample continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat 1999; 9: 17-44.
15. 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: 2070-2080.
16. 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: e51039.
17. 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.
18. 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: 465-477.
19. Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput Stat Data Anal 1999; 30: 12.
20. Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3012-3028.
21. Postel-Vinay S, Collette L, Paoletti X et al. Towards new methods for the determination of dose limiting toxicities and the assessment of the recommended dose for further studies of molecularly targeted agents. DLT-TARGETT, an EORTCled study. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50(12): 2040-2049.
22. 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: 4260-4267.
23. Hunsberger S, Rubinstein LV, Dancey J et al. Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2171-2181.
24. Houede N, Thall PF, Nguyen H et al. Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials. Biometrics 2009; 66 (2): 532-540.
25. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60: 684-693.
26. Mandrekar SJ, Cui Y, Sargent DJ. An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med 2007; 26: 2317-2330.
27. Pijls-Johannesma M, van Mastrigt G, Hahn SM et al. A systematic methodology review of phase I radiation dose escalation trials. Radiother Oncol 2010; 95: 135-141.
28. Polley MY. Practical modifications to the time-to-event continual reassessment method for phase I cancer trials with fast patient accrual and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2130-2143.
29. Paoletti X, Le Tourneau C, Verweij J et al. Defining dose-limiting toxicity for phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: results of a DLT-TARGETT international survey. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50(12): 2050-2056.
30. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Mehra R et al. Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1189-1197.
31. Doussau A, Thiebaut R, Geoerger B et al. A new approach to integrate toxicity grade and repeated treatment cycles in the analysis and reporting of phase I dosefinding trials. Ann Oncol 2015; 26(2): 422-428.
32. Riviere MK, Le Tourneau C, Paoletti X et al. Designs of drug-combination phase I trials in oncology: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 669-674.
33. Riviere MK, Dubois F, Zohar S. Competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials. Stat Med 2015; 34(1): 23-26.
34. Wages NA, Conaway MR, Slingluff CL Jr et al. Recent developments in the implementation of novel designs for early-phase combination studies. Ann Oncol 2015; 26(5): 1036-1037.
35. Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9948): 1109-1117.
36. Gupta S, Hunsberger S, Boerner SA et al. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dose and benefit in phase I targeted agent trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104(24): 1860-1866.