Bayesian adaptive linearization method for phase I drug combination trials with dimension reduction

Many phase I drug combination designs have been proposed to find the maximum tolerated combination (MTC). Due to the two‐dimension nature of drug combination trials, these designs typically require complicated statistical modeling and estimation, which limit their use in practice. In this article, we propose an easy‐to‐implement Bayesian phase I combination design, called Bayesian adaptive linearization method (BALM), to simplify the dose finding for drug combination trials. BALM takes the dimension reduction approach. It selects a subset of combinations, through a procedure called linearization, to convert the two‐dimensional dose matrix into a string of combinations that are fully ordered in toxicity. As a result, existing single‐agent dose‐finding methods can be directly used to find the MTC. In case that the selected linear path does not contain the MTC, a dose‐insertion procedure is performed to add new doses whose expected toxicity rate is equal to the target toxicity rate. Our simulation studies show that the proposed BALM design performs better than competing, more complicated combination designs.     

A simulation study of methods for selecting subgroup‐specific doses in phase 1 trials

Patient heterogeneity may complicate dose‐finding in phase 1 clinical trials if the dose‐toxicity curves differ between subgroups. Conducting separate trials within subgroups may lead to infeasibly small sample sizes in subgroups having low prevalence. Alternatively,it is not obvious how to conduct a single trial while accounting for heterogeneity. To address this problem,we consider a generalization of the continual reassessment method on the basis of a hierarchical Bayesian dose‐toxicity model that borrows strength between subgroups under the assumption that the subgroups are exchangeable. We evaluate a design using this model that includes subgroup‐specific dose selection and safety rules. A simulation study is presented that includes comparison of this method to 3 alternative approaches,on the basis of nonhierarchical models,that make different types of assumptions about within‐subgroup dose‐toxicity curves. The simulations show that the hierarchical model‐based method is recommended in settings where the dose‐toxicity curves are exchangeable between subgroups. We present practical guidelines for application and provide computer programs for trial simulation and conduct.     

A Bayesian dose‐finding design for drug combination clinical trials based on the logistic model

In early phase dose‐finding cancer studies, the objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose, defined as the highest dose with an acceptable dose‐limiting toxicity rate. Finding this dose for drug‐combination trials is complicated because of drug–drug interactions, and many trial designs have been proposed to address this issue. These designs rely on complicated statistical models that typically are not familiar to clinicians, and are rarely used in practice. The aim of this paper is to propose a Bayesian dose‐finding design for drug combination trials based on standard logistic regression. Under the proposed design, we continuously update the posterior estimates of the model parameters to make the decisions of dose assignment and early stopping. Simulation studies show that the proposed design is competitive and outperforms some existing designs. We also extend our design to handle delayed toxicities. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

TITE‐BOIN‐ET: Time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose‐finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de‐escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late‐onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named “TITE‐BOIN‐ET” design, is nonparametric and a model‐assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose‐finding trials compared with the model‐based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design has advantages compared with the model‐based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose‐finding trials.     

Dynamic ordering design for dose finding in drug-combination trials

Drug-combination studies have become increasingly popular in oncology. One of the critical concerns in phase I drug-combination trials is the uncertainty in toxicity evaluation. Most of the existing phase I designs aim to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) by reducing the two-dimensional searching space to one dimension via a prespecified model or splitting the two-dimensional space into multiple one-dimensional subspaces based on the partially known toxicity order. Nevertheless, both strategies often lead to complicated trials which may either be sensitive to model assumptions or induce longer trial durations due to subtrial split. We develop two versions of dynamic ordering design (DOD) for dose finding in drug-combination trials, where the dose-finding problem is cast in the Bayesian model selection framework. The toxicity order of dose combinations is continuously updated via a two-dimensional pool-adjacent-violators algorithm, and then the dose assignment for each incoming cohort is selected based on the optimal model under the dynamic toxicity order. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the performance of DOD in comparison with four other commonly used designs under various scenarios. Simulation results show that the two versions of DOD possess competitive performances in terms of correct MTD selection as well as safety, and we apply both versions of DOD to two real oncology trials for illustration.     

A randomized phase I Bayesian dose escalation design for the combination of anti‐cancer drugs

Nowadays, treatment regimens for cancer often involve a combination of drugs. The determination of the doses of each of the combined drugs in phase I dose escalation studies poses methodological challenges. The most common phase I design, the classic ‘3+3' design, has been criticized for poorly estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and for treating too many subjects at doses below the MTD. In addition, the classic ‘3+3' is not able to address the challenges posed by combinations of drugs. Here, we assume that a control drug (commonly used and well‐studied) is administered at a fixed dose in combination with a new agent (the experimental drug) of which the appropriate dose has to be determined. We propose a randomized design in which subjects are assigned to the control or to the combination of the control and experimental. The MTD is determined using a model‐based Bayesian technique based on the difference of probability of dose limiting toxicities (DLT) between the control and the combination arm. We show, through a simulation study, that this approach provides better and more accurate estimates of the MTD. We argue that this approach may differentiate between an extreme high probability of DLT observed from the control and a high probability of DLT of the combination. We also report on a fictive (simulation) analysis based on published data of a phase I trial of ifosfamide combined with sunitinib.Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Application of Bayesian hierarchical models for phase I/II clinical trials in oncology

Treatment during cancer clinical trials sometimes involves the combination of multiple drugs. In addition, in recent years there has been a trend toward phase I/II trials in which a phase I and a phase II trial are combined into a single trial to accelerate drug development. Methods for the seamless combination of phases I and II parts are currently under investigation. In the phase II part, adaptive randomization on the basis of patient efficacy outcomes allocates more patients to the dose combinations considered to have higher efficacy. Patient toxicity outcomes are used for determining admissibility to each dose combination and are not used for selection of the dose combination itself. In cases where the objective is not to find the optimum dose combination solely for efficacy but regarding both toxicity and efficacy, the need exists to allocate patients to dose combinations with consideration of the balance of existing trade‐offs between toxicity and efficacy. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model and an adaptive randomization with consideration for the relationship with toxicity and efficacy. Using the toxicity and efficacy outcomes of patients, the Bayesian hierarchical model is used to estimate the toxicity probability and efficacy probability in each of the dose combinations. Here, we use Bayesian moving‐reference adaptive randomization on the basis of desirability computed from the obtained estimator. Computer simulations suggest that the proposed method will likely recommend a higher percentage of target dose combinations than a previously proposed method.     

Coherence principles in interval‐based dose finding

This paper studies the notion of coherence in interval‐based dose‐finding methods. An incoherent decision is either (a) a recommendation to escalate the dose following an observed dose‐limiting toxicity or (b) a recommendation to deescalate the dose following a non–dose‐limiting toxicity. In a simulated example, we illustrate that the Bayesian optimal interval method and the Keyboard method are not coherent. We generated dose‐limiting toxicity outcomes under an assumed set of true probabilities for a trial of n=36 patients in cohorts of size 1, and we counted the number of incoherent dosing decisions that were made throughout this simulated trial. Each of the methods studied resulted in 13/36 (36%) incoherent decisions in the simulated trial. Additionally, for two different target dose‐limiting toxicity rates, 20% and 30%, and a sample size of n=30 patients, we randomly generated 100 dose‐toxicity curves and tabulated the number of incoherent decisions made by each method in 1000 simulated trials under each curve. For each method studied, the probability of incurring at least one incoherent decision during the conduct of a single trial is greater than 75%. Coherency is an important principle in the conduct of dose‐finding trials. Interval‐based methods violate this principle for cohorts of size 1 and require additional modifications to overcome this shortcoming. Researchers need to take a closer look at the dose assignment behavior of interval‐based methods when using them to plan dose‐finding studies.     

Robust EM Continual Reassessment Method in Oncology Dose Finding

The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a commonly used dose-finding design for phase I clinical trials. Practical applications of this method have been restricted by two limitations: (1) the requirement that the toxicity outcome needs to be observed shortly after the initiation of the treatment; and (2) the potential sensitivity to the prespecified toxicity probability at each dose. To overcome these limitations, we naturally treat the unobserved toxicity outcomes as missing data, and use the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to estimate the dose toxicity probabilities based on the incomplete data to direct dose assignment. To enhance the robustness of the design, we propose prespecifying multiple sets of toxicity probabilities, each set corresponding to an individual CRM model. We carry out these multiple CRMs in parallel, across which model selection and model averaging procedures are used to make more robust inference. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed robust EM-CRM designs through simulation studies and show that the proposed methods satisfactorily resolve both limitations of the CRM. Besides improving the MTD selection percentage, the new designs dramatically shorten the duration of the trial, and are robust to the prespecification of the toxicity probabilities.     

A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial

Dose‐finding studies that aim to evaluate the safety of single agents are becoming less common, and advances in clinical research have complicated the paradigm of dose finding in oncology. A class of more complex problems, such as targeted agents, combination therapies and stratification of patients by clinical or genetic characteristics, has created the need to adapt early‐phase trial design to the specific type of drug being investigated and the corresponding endpoints. In this article, we describe the implementation of an adaptive design based on a continual reassessment method for heterogeneous groups, modified to coincide with the objectives of a Phase I/II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with painful osseous metastatic disease. Operating characteristics of the Institutional Review Board approved design are demonstrated under various possible true scenarios via simulation studies. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Escalation strategies for combination therapy Phase I trials

Phase I clinical trials aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the highest possible dose that does not cause an unacceptable amount of toxicity in the patients. In trials of combination therapies, however, many different dose combinations may have a similar probability of causing a dose‐limiting toxicity, and hence, a number of MTDs may exist. Furthermore, escalation strategies in combination trials are more complex, with possible escalation/de‐escalation of either or both drugs. This paper investigates the properties of two existing proposed Bayesian adaptive models for combination therapy dose‐escalation when a number of different escalation strategies are applied. We assess operating characteristics through a series of simulation studies and show that strategies that only allow ‘non‐diagonal’ moves in the escalation process (that is, both drugs cannot increase simultaneously) are inefficient and identify fewer MTDs for Phase II comparisons. Such strategies tend to escalate a single agent first while keeping the other agent fixed, which can be a severe restriction when exploring dose surfaces using a limited sample size. Meanwhile, escalation designs based on Bayesian D‐optimality allow more varied experimentation around the dose space and, consequently, are better at identifying more MTDs. We argue that for Phase I combination trials it is sensible to take forward a number of identified MTDs for Phase II experimentation so that their efficacy can be directly compared. Researchers, therefore, need to carefully consider the escalation strategy and model that best allows the identification of these MTDs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity

In oncology, toxicity is typically observable shortly after a chemotherapy treatment, whereas efficacy, often characterized by tumor shrinkage, is observable after a relatively long period of time. In a phase II clinical trial design, we propose a Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We model efficacy as a time-to-event endpoint and toxicity as a binary endpoint, sharing common random effects in order to induce dependence between the bivariate outcomes. More generally, we allow the randomization probability to depend on patients’ specific covariates, such as prognostic factors. Early stopping boundaries are constructed for toxicity and futility, and a superior treatment arm is recommended at the end of the trial. Following the setup of a recent renal cancer clinical trial at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we conduct extensive simulation studies under various scenarios to investigate the performance of the proposed method, and compare it with available Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures.     

Effect of design specifications in dose‐finding trials for combination therapies in oncology

Model‐based dose‐finding methods for a combination therapy involving two agents in phase I oncology trials typically include four design aspects namely, size of the patient cohort, three‐parameter dose‐toxicity model, choice of start‐up rule, and whether or not to include a restriction on dose‐level skipping. The effect of each design aspect on the operating characteristics of the dose‐finding method has not been adequately studied. However, some studies compared the performance of rival dose‐finding methods using design aspects outlined by the original studies. In this study, we featured the well‐known four design aspects and evaluated the impact of each independent effect on the operating characteristics of the dose‐finding method including these aspects. We performed simulation studies to examine the effect of these design aspects on the determination of the true maximum tolerated dose combinations as well as exposure to unacceptable toxic dose combinations. The results demonstrated that the selection rates of maximum tolerated dose combinations and UTDCs vary depending on the patient cohort size and restrictions on dose‐level skipping However, the three‐parameter dose‐toxicity models and start‐up rules did not affect these parameters. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Logistic retainment interval dose exploration design for Phase I clinical trials of cytotoxic agents

Phase I studies of a cytotoxic agent often aim to identify the dose that provides an investigator specified target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) probability. In practice, an initial cohort receives a dose with a putative low DLT probability, and subsequent dosing follows by consecutively deciding whether to retain the current dose, escalate to the adjacent higher dose, or de-escalate to the adjacent lower dose. This article proposes a Phase I design derived using a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to this sequential decision-making process. The design consecutively chooses the action that minimizes posterior expected loss where the loss reflects the distance on the log-odds scale between the target and the DLT probability of the dose that would be given to the next cohort under the corresponding action. A logistic model is assumed for the log odds of a DLT at the current dose with a weakly informative t-distribution prior centered at the target. The key design parameters are the pre-specified odds ratios for the DLT probabilities at the adjacent higher and lower doses. Dosing rules may be pre-tabulated, as these only depend on the outcomes at the current dose, which greatly facilitates implementation. The recommended default version of the proposed design improves dose selection relative to many established designs across a variety of scenarios.     

Dose‐escalation strategies which use subgroup information

Dose‐escalation trials commonly assume a homogeneous trial population to identify a single recommended dose of the experimental treatment for use in future trials. Wrongly assuming a homogeneous population can lead to a diluted treatment effect. Equally, exclusion of a subgroup that could in fact benefit from the treatment can cause a beneficial treatment effect to be missed. Accounting for a potential subgroup effect (ie, difference in reaction to the treatment between subgroups) in dose‐escalation can increase the chance of finding the treatment to be efficacious in a larger patient population. A standard Bayesian model‐based method of dose‐escalation is extended to account for a subgroup effect by including covariates for subgroup membership in the dose‐toxicity model. A stratified design performs well but uses available data inefficiently and makes no inferences concerning presence of a subgroup effect. A hypothesis test could potentially rectify this problem but the small sample sizes result in a low‐powered test. As an alternative, the use of spike and slab priors for variable selection is proposed. This method continually assesses the presence of a subgroup effect, enabling efficient use of the available trial data throughout escalation and in identifying the recommended dose(s). A simulation study, based on real trial data, was conducted and this design was found to be both promising and feasible.     

Generalized phase I-II designs to increase long term therapeutic success rate

Designs for early phase dose finding clinical trials typically are either phase I based on toxicity, or phase I-II based on toxicity and efficacy. These designs rely on the implicit assumption that the dose of an experimental agent chosen using these short-term outcomes will maximize the agent's long-term therapeutic success rate. In many clinical settings, this assumption is not true. A dose selected in an early phase oncology trial may give suboptimal progression-free survival or overall survival time, often due to a high rate of relapse following response. To address this problem, a new family of Bayesian generalized phase I-II designs is proposed. First, a conventional phase I-II design based on short-term outcomes is used to identify a set of candidate doses, rather than selecting one dose. Additional patients then are randomized among the candidates, patients are followed for a predefined longer time period, and a final dose is selected to maximize the long-term therapeutic success rate, defined in terms of duration of response. Dose-specific sample sizes in the randomization are determined adaptively to obtain a desired level of selection reliability. The design was motivated by a phase I-II trial to find an optimal dose of natural killer cells as targeted immunotherapy for recurrent or treatment-resistant B-cell hematologic malignancies. A simulation study shows that, under a range of scenarios in the context of this trial, the proposed design has much better performance than two conventional phase I-II designs.     

A Hybrid Geometric Phase II/III Clinical Trial Design based on Treatment Failure Time and Toxicity

The problem of comparing several experimental treatments to a standard arises frequently in medical research. Various multi-stage randomized phase II/III designs have been proposed that select one or more promising experimental treatments and compare them to the standard while controlling overall Type I and Type II error rates. This paper addresses phase II/III settings where the joint goals are to increase the average time to treatment failure and control the probability of toxicity while accounting for patient heterogeneity. We are motivated by the desire to construct a feasible design for a trial of four chemotherapy combinations for treating a family of rare pediatric brain tumors. We present a hybrid two-stage design based on two-dimensional treatment effect parameters. A targeted parameter set is constructed from elicited parameter pairs considered to be equally desirable. Bayesian regression models for failure time and the probability of toxicity as functions of treatment and prognostic covariates are used to define two-dimensional covariate-adjusted treatment effect parameter sets. Decisions at each stage of the trial are based on the ratio of posterior probabilities of the alternative and null covariate-adjusted parameter sets. Design parameters are chosen to minimize expected sample size subject to frequentist error constraints. The design is illustrated by application to the brain tumor trial.     

A bivariate Bayesian dose‐finding procedure applied to a seamless phase I/II trial in rheumatoid arthritis

We describe a dose escalation procedure for a combined phase I/II clinical trial. The procedure is based on a Bayesian model for the joint distribution of the occurrence of a dose limiting event and of some indicator of efficacy (both considered binary variables), making no assumptions other than monotonicity. Thus, the chances of each outcome are assumed to be non‐decreasing in dose level. We applied the procedure to the design of a placebo‐controlled, sequential trial in rheumatoid arthritis, in each stage of which patients were randomized between placebo and all dose levels that currently appeared safe and non‐futile. On the basis of data from a pilot study, we constructed five different scenarios for the dose–response relationships under which we simulated the trial and assessed the performance of the procedure. The new design appears to have satisfactory operating characteristics and can be adapted to the requirements of a range of trial situations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Application of Bayesian analyses to doubly randomized delayed start,matched control designs to demonstrate disease modification

Disease modification is a primary therapeutic aim when developing treatments for most chronic progressive diseases. The best treatments do not simply affect disease symptoms but fundamentally improve disease course by slowing, halting, or reversing disease progression. One of many challenges for establishing disease modification relates to the identification of adequate analytic tools to show differences in a disease course following intervention. Traditional approaches rely on the comparisons of slopes or noninferiority margins. However, it has proven difficult to conclusively demonstrate disease modification using such approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a novel adaptation of the delayed start study design that incorporates posterior probabilities identified by hierarchical Bayesian inference approaches to establish evidence for disease modification. Our models compare the size of treatment differences at the end of the delayed start period with those at the end of the early start period. Simulations that compare several models are provided. These include general linear models, repeated measures models, spline models, and model averaging. Our work supports the superiority of model averaging for accurately characterizing complex data that arise in real world applications. This novel approach has been applied to the design of an ongoing, doubly randomized, matched control study that aims to show disease modification in young persons with schizophrenia (the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study). The application of this Bayesian methodology to the DREaM study highlights the value of this approach and demonstrates many practical challenges that must be addressed when implementing this methodology in a real world trial.     

A Bayesian phase I/II design to determine subgroup-specific optimal dose for immunotherapy sequentially combined with radiotherapy

Sequential administration of immunotherapy following radiotherapy (immunoRT) has attracted much attention in cancer research. Due to its unique feature that radiotherapy upregulates the expression of a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy, novel clinical trial designs are needed for immunoRT to identify patient subgroups and the optimal dose for each subgroup. In this article, we propose a Bayesian phase I/II design for immunotherapy administered after standard-dose radiotherapy for this purpose. We construct a latent subgroup membership variable and model it as a function of the baseline and pre-post radiotherapy change in the predictive biomarker measurements. Conditional on the latent subgroup membership of each patient, we jointly model the continuous immune response and the binary efficacy outcome using plateau models, and model toxicity using the equivalent toxicity score approach to account for toxicity grades. During the trial, based on accumulating data, we continuously update model estimates and adaptively randomize patients to admissible doses. Simulation studies and an illustrative trial application show that our design has good operating characteristics in terms of identifying both patient subgroups and the optimal dose for each subgroup.