Dose transition pathways: The missing link between complex dose-finding designs and simple decision-making

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 23, Issue 24, 2017, Pages 7440-7447

  Yap, Christina ^a   Billingham, Lucinda J ^a   Cheung, Ying Kuen ^b   Craddock, Charlie ^c   O'Quigley, John ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^c QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AZACITIDINE; LENALIDOMIDE;

ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DECISION MAKING; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE TRANSITION PATHWAY; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME; PATIENT SAFETY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DOSE RESPONSE; PATHOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; LEUKEMIA, MYELOID, ACUTE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 85038438739     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: 15573265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0582     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989;45: 925-37.
2. 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: 4982-6.
3. Nie L, Rubin EH, Mehrotra N, Pinheiro J, Fernandes LL, Roy A, et al. Rendering the 3 + 3 design to rest: more efficient approaches to oncology dose-finding trials in the era of targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 2623-9.
4. Harrington JA, Wheeler GM, SweetingMJ, Mander AP, Jodrell DI. Adaptive designs for dual-agent phase I dose-escalation studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10: 277-88.
5. Sharma RA, Plummer R, Stock JK, Greenhalgh TA, Ataman O, Kelly S, et al. Clinical development of new drug-radiotherapy combinations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13: 627-42.
6. 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.
7. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998;17: 1103-20.
8. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, Seshan VE, Spriggs DR. 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.
9. Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3 + 3 design for phase I trials. Ann Oncol 2015;26: 1808-12.
10. Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13: 106-17.
11. Cheung YK. Dose finding by the continual reassessment method. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2011.
12. Iasonos A, Gonen M, Bosl GJ. Scientific review of phase I protocols with novel dose-escalation designs: how much information is needed? J Clin Oncol 2015;33: 2221-5.
13. Lee SM, Cheung YK. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials 2009;6: 227-38.
14. Wages NA, Conaway MR. Specifications of a continual reassessment method design for phase I trials of combined drugs. Pharm Stat 2013;12: 217-24.
15. Craddock C, Labopin M, Robin M, Finke J, Chevallier P, Yakoub-Agha I, et al. Clinical activity of azacitidine in patients who relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 2016;101: 879-83.
16. Mollgard L, Saft L, Treppendahl MB, Dybedal I, Norgaard JM, Astermark J, et al. Clinical effect of increasing doses of lenalidomide in high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with chromosome 5 abnormalities. Haematologica 2011; 96: 963-71.
17. Craddock C, Jilani N, Siddique S, Yap C, Khan J, Nagra S, et al. Tolerability and clinical activity of post-transplantation azacitidine in patients allografted for acute myeloid leukemia treated on the RICAZA trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2016;22: 385-90.
18. Ji Y, Liu P, Li Y, Bekele BN. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clin Trials 2010;7: 653-63.
19. Ji Y, Wang S-J. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3+3 design for practical phase I trials. JClin Oncol 2013;31: 1785-91.
20. Yuan Y, Hess KR, Hilsenbeck SG, Gilbert MR. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22: 4291-301.
21. Horton BJ, Wages NA, Conaway MR. Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method. Stat Med 2017;36: 291-300.
22. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with lateonset toxicities. Biometrics 2000;56: 1177-82.
23. Bekele BN, Thall PF. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. J Am Stat Assoc 2004;99: 26-35.
24. Yuan Y, Yin G. Sequential continual reassessment method for twodimensional dose finding. Stat Med 2008;27: 5664-78.
25. 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.
26. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004;60: 684-93.
27. Lee SM, Cheng B, Cheung YK. Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints. Biostatistics 2011;12: 386-98.
28. Yap C, Craddock C, Collins G, Khan J, Siddique S, Billingham L. Implementation of adaptive dose-finding designs in two early phase haematological trials: clinical, operational, and methodological challenges. Trials 2013;14(Suppl 1): O75.
29. Cole M, Stocken D, Yap C. A pragmatic approach to the design and calibration of a Bayesian CRM dose finding trial. Trials 2015; 16(Suppl 2): P210.
30. Brock K, Billingham L, Copland M, Siddique S, Sirovica M, Yap C. Implementing the EffTox dose-finding design in the Matchpoint trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017;17: 112.
31. Cheung Y. dfcrm: Dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. R package version 2013: 02-2.
32. Cheung YK. Coherence principles in dose-finding studies. Biometrika 2005;92: 863-73.