Implementation of adaptive methods in early-phase clinical trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 215-224

  Petroni, Gina R ^a   Wages, Nolan A ^a   Paux, Gautier ^b   Dubois, Frédéric ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b IRIS Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier   (France)

Author keywords

adaptive methods; dose finding; protocol development

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CLINICAL AUDIT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; DATA PROCESSING; DECISION MAKING; DOSIMETRY; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; OPTIMAL DRUG DOSE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RESPONSIBILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; PROCEDURES; SAFETY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ALGORITHMS; BIOSTATISTICS; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SAFETY; SAMPLE SIZE; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84959515785     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6910     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Paoletti X, O'Quigley J, Maccario J. Design efficiency in dose-finding studies. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2004; 45:197–214.
2. Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007; 25:4982–4986.
3. Iasonos A, Wilton A, Riedel E, Seshan V, Spriggs D. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+3 dose escalation scheme in phase 1 dose-finding studies. Clinical Trials 2008; 5:465–477.
4. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101:708–720.
5. O'Quigley J, Conaway M. Continual reassessment and related dose-finding designs. Statistical Science 2010; 25(2):202–216.
6. O'Quigley J, Conaway M. Extended model based designs for more complex dose-finding studies. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30:2062–2069.
7. Jaki T, Clive S, Weir CJ. Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: a comparison of trial designs. Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 2013; 71:1107–1114.
8. Wages NA, Conaway MR, O'Quigley J. Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark. Clinical Trials 2013; 10:862–875.
9. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013; 31:1785–1791.
10. Iasonos A, O'Quigley J. Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014; 32:2505–2511.
11. Liu S, Yuan Y. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society – Series C (Applied Statistics) 2015; 64:507–523.
12. Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3+3 design for phase I trials. Annals of Oncology 2015; [epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv266.
13. Zang Y, Lee JJ, Yuan Y. Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. Clinical Trials 2014; 11:319–327.
14. Wages NA, Slingluff CL Jr, Petroni GR. 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 2015; 41:172–179.
15. Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 1999; 30:303–315.
16. Kelly WK, Halabi S. Oncology Clinical Trials. DemoMedical: New York, 2010 Chapter 8.
17. Wages NA, Read PW, Petroni GR. A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2015; 14:302–310.
18. Cheung YK. Sample size formulae for the Bayesian continual reassessment method. Clinical Trials. 2013; 10:852–861.
19. O'Quigley J, Reiner E. A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method. Biometrika 1998; 85:741–748.
20. Iasonos A, Gönen M, Bosl GJ. Scientific review of Phase I protocols with novel dose-escalation designs: how much information is needed? Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015; 33:2221–2225.
21. Cheung K. dfcrm: dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. R package version 0.2-2 2013. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dfcrm.
22. Sweeting M, Mander A, Sabin T. bcrm: Bayesian continual reassessment method designs for phase I dose-finding trials. Journal of Statistical Software 2013; 54:1–26.
23. Wages NA, Varhegyi N. pocrm: an R package for phase I trials of combinations of agents. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2013; 112:211–218.
24. Braun TM, Thall PF, Nguyen H, de Lima M. Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clinical Trials 2007; 4:113–124.
25. de Lima M, Giralt S, Thall PF, de Padua Silva L, Jones RB, Komanduri K, Braun TM, Nguyen HQ, Champlin R, Garcia-Manero G. Maintenance therapy with low dose azacitidine after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for recurrent acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome: a dose and schedule finding study. Cancer 2010; 116:5420–5431.
26. Conaway MR, Dunbar S, Peddada SD. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics 2004; 60:661–669.
27. Jones DR, Moskaluk CA, Gillenwater HH, Petroni GR, Burks SG, Philips J, Rehm PK, Olazagasti J, Kozower BD, Bao Y. Phase I trial of induction histone deacetylase and proteasome inhibition followed by surgery in non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2012; 7:1683–1690.
28. Mandrekar SJ. Dose-finding trial designs for combination therapies in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014; 32:65–67.
29. Ivanova A, Wang K. A non-parametric approach to the design and analysis of two-dimensional dose-finding trials. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:1861–1870.
30. Gandhi L, Bahleda R, Tolaney SM, Kwak EL, Cleary JM, Pandya SS, Hollebecque A, Abbas R, Ananthakrishnan R, Berkenblit A, Krygowski M, Liang Y, Turnbull KW, Shapiro GI, Soria JC. Phase I study of neratinib in combination with temsirolimus in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-dependent and other solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014; 32:68–75.
31. Wages NA, Conaway MR, Slingluff CL Jr, Williams ME, Portell CA, Hwu P, Petroni GR. Recent developments in the implementation of novel designs for early-phase combination studies. Annals of Oncology 2015; 26:1036–1037.
32. Lorch U, O'Kane M, Taubel J. Three steps to writing adaptive study protocols in the early phase clinical development of new medicines. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014; 14:84. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-84.