Incorporating historical information to improve phase I clinical trials

Incorporating historical data has a great potential to improve the efficiency of phase I clinical trials and to accelerate drug development. For model-based designs, such as the continuous reassessment method (CRM), this can be conveniently carried out by specifying a “skeleton,” that is, the prior estimate of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) probability at each dose. In contrast, little work has been done to incorporate historical data into model-assisted designs, such as the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN), Keyboard, and modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) designs. This has led to the misconception that model-assisted designs cannot incorporate prior information. In this paper, we propose a unified framework that allows for incorporating historical data into model-assisted designs. The proposed approach uses the well-established “skeleton” approach, combined with the concept of prior effective sample size, thus it is easy to understand and use. More importantly, our approach maintains the hallmark of model-assisted designs: simplicity—the dose escalation/de-escalation rule can be tabulated prior to the trial conduct. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed method can effectively incorporate prior information to improve the operating characteristics of model-assisted designs, similarly to model-based designs.     

Improving early phase oncology clinical trial design: An opportunity for statisticians

This short communication supports that rule-based study designs such as the ‘3 + 3’ study design are still being used in early phase oncology development programs despite their inferior performance to model-based and model-assisted designs. Statisticians have an opportunity to shape and improve early phase oncology drug development programs by introducing newer, more efficient study designs that estimate the Optimal Biological dose to their oncology trialist colleges.     

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.     

A comparative study of adaptive trial designs for dose optimization

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development. The agency pointed out that the current paradigm for dose selection—based on the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)—is not sufficient for molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, for which efficacy may not increase after the dose reaches a certain level. In these cases, it is more appropriate to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) that optimizes the risk–benefit tradeoff of the drug. Project Optimus has spurred tremendous interest and urgent need for guidance on designing dose optimization trials. In this article, we review several representative dose optimization designs, including model-based and model-assisted designs, and compare their operating characteristics based on 10,000 randomly generated scenarios with various dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy curves and some fixed representative scenarios. The results show that, compared with model-based designs, model-assisted methods have advantages of easy-to-implement, robustness, and high accuracy to identify OBD. Some guidance is provided to help biostatisticians and clinicians to choose appropriate dose optimization methods in practice.     

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.     

Bayesian single-to-double arm transition design using both short-term and long-term endpoints

The choice between single-arm designs versus randomized double-arm designs has been contentiously debated in the literature of phase II oncology trials. Recently, as a compromise, the single-to-double arm transition design was proposed, combining the two designs into one trial over two stages. Successful implementation of the two-stage transition design requires a suspension period at the end of the first stage to collect the response data of the already enrolled patients. When the evaluation of the primary efficacy endpoint is overly long, the between-stage suspension period may unfavorably prolong the trial duration and cause a delay in treating future eligible patients. To accelerate the trial, we propose a Bayesian single-to-double arm design with short-term endpoints (BSDS), where an intermediate short-term endpoint is used for making early termination decisions at the end of the single-arm stage, followed by an evaluation of the long-term endpoint at the end of the subsequent double-arm stage. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used as the primary decision-making tool at the end of the trial. Design calibration steps are proposed for this Bayesian monitoring process to control the frequentist operating characteristics and minimize the expected sample size. Extensive simulation studies have demonstrated that our design has comparable power and average sample size but a much shorter trial duration than conventional single-to-double arm design. Applications of the design are illustrated using two phase II oncology trials with binary endpoints.     

Performance of phase-I dose finding designs with and without a run-in intra-patient dose escalation stage

Dose-finding designs for phase-I trials aim to determine the recommended phase-II dose (RP2D) for further phase-II drug development. If the trial includes patients for whom several lines of standard therapy failed or if the toxicity of the investigated agent does not necessarily increase with dose, optimal dose-finding designs should limit the frequency of treatment with suboptimal doses. We propose a two-stage design strategy with a run-in intra-patient dose escalation part followed by a more traditional dose-finding design. We conduct simulation studies to compare the 3 + 3 design, the Bayesian Optimal Interval Design (BOIN) and the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) with and without intra-patient dose escalation. The endpoints are accuracy, sample size, safety, and therapeutic efficiency. For scenarios where the correct RP2D is the highest dose, inclusion of an intra-patient dose escalation stage generally increases accuracy and therapeutic efficiency. However, for scenarios where the correct RP2D is below the highest dose, intra-patient dose escalation designs lead to increased risk of overdosing and an overestimation of RP2D. The magnitude of the change in operating characteristics after including an intra-patient stage is largest for the 3 + 3 design, decreases for the BOIN and is smallest for the CRM.     

A Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on pharmacokinetics outcomes in oncology

The primary objective of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify the optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic (PK) information is considered an appropriate indicator for evaluating the level of drug intervention in humans from a pharmacological perspective. Several novel anticancer agents have been shown to have significant exposure-efficacy relationships, and some PK information has been considered an important predictor of efficacy. This paper proposes a Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on PK outcomes in oncology. A simulation study shows that the proposed design has advantages compared to the other designs in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to OD in various realistic settings.     

抗肿瘤药物贝叶斯Ⅰ期临床试验设计方法比较研究

Ⅰ期临床试验的主要目的是探索药物毒性最大耐受剂量MTD,而MTD估计的准确与否将影响之后的Ⅱ期和Ⅲ期临床试验研究的结果.抗肿瘤药物Ⅰ期试验的特点是直接对病人进行试验,且样本量较小,这对构造估计精确度高并具有安全性保障要求的统计设计方法提出了挑战.回顾三种常用的Ⅰ期试验设计方法有:3+3设计、CRM设计和mTPI设计.3+3设计是应用较为广泛的传统方法,后两者是当前常用的贝叶斯自适应试验设计方法.通过大量模拟研究对三种方法从最优分配、安全性和估计MTD精确性三方面给以全面考察,并结合中国实际得出mTPI设计是比较适合推荐的Ⅰ期临床试验设计方法的结论.     

A confidence function-based posterior probability design for phase II cancer trials

Single-arm one- or multi-stage study designs are commonly used in phase II oncology development when the primary outcome of interest is tumor response, a binary variable. Both two- and three-outcome designs are available. Simon two-stage design is a well-known example of two-outcome designs. The objective of a two-outcome trial is to reject either the null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is less than or equal to a pre-specified low uninteresting rate or to reject the alternative hypothesis that the ORR is greater than or equal to some target rate. Three-outcome designs proposed by Sargent et al. allow a middle gray decision zone which rejects neither hypothesis in order to reduce the required study size. We propose new two- and three-outcome designs with continual monitoring based on Bayesian posterior probability that meet frequentist specifications such as type I and II error rates. Futility and/or efficacy boundaries are based on confidence functions, which can require higher levels of evidence for early versus late stopping and have clear and intuitive interpretations. We search in a class of such procedures for optimal designs that minimize a given loss function such as average sample size under the null hypothesis. We present several examples and compare our design with other procedures in the literature and show that our design has good operating characteristics.     

Incorporating historical information to improve dose optimization design with toxicity and efficacy endpoints: iBOIN-ET

In modern oncology drug development, adaptive designs have been proposed to identify the recommended phase 2 dose. The conventional dose finding designs focus on the identification of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). However, designs ignoring efficacy could put patients under risk by pushing to the MTD. Especially in immuno-oncology and cell therapy, the complex dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships make such MTD driven designs more questionable. Additionally, it is not uncommon to have data available from other studies that target on similar mechanism of action and patient population. Due to the high variability from phase I trial, it is beneficial to borrow historical study information into the design when available. This will help to increase the model efficiency and accuracy and provide dose specific recommendation rules to avoid toxic dose level and increase the chance of patient allocation at potential efficacious dose levels. In this paper, we propose iBOIN-ET design that uses prior distribution extracted from historical studies to minimize the probability of decision error. The proposed design utilizes the concept of skeleton from both toxicity and efficacy data, coupled with prior effective sample size to control the amount of historical information to be incorporated. Extensive simulation studies across a variety of realistic settings are reported including a comparison of iBOIN-ET design to other model based and assisted approaches. The proposed novel design demonstrates the superior performances in percentage of selecting the correct optimal dose (OD), average number of patients allocated to the correct OD, and overdosing control during dose escalation process.     

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.     

Enabling robust assessment of QTc prolongation in early phase clinical trials

Since the implementation of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E14 guideline in 2005, regulators have required a “thorough QTc” (TQT) study for evaluating the effects of investigational drugs on delayed cardiac repolarization as manifested by a prolonged QTc interval. However, TQT studies have increasingly been viewed unfavorably because of their low cost effectiveness. Several researchers have noted that a robust drug concentration‐QTc (conc‐QTc) modeling assessment in early phase development should, in most cases, obviate the need for a subsequent TQT study. In December 2015, ICH released an “E14 Q&As (R3)” document supporting the use of conc‐QTc modeling for regulatory decisions. In this article, we propose a simple improvement of two popular conc‐QTc assessment methods for typical first‐in‐human crossover‐like single ascending dose clinical pharmacology trials. The improvement is achieved, in part, by leveraging routinely encountered (and expected) intrasubject correlation patterns encountered in such trials. A real example involving a single ascending dose and corresponding TQT trial, along with results from a simulation study, illustrate the strong performance of the proposed method. The improved conc‐QTc assessment will further enable highly reliable go/no‐go decisions in early phase clinical development and deliver results that support subsequent TQT study waivers by regulators.     

Optimal planning of phase II/III programs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints

Owing to increased costs and competition pressure, drug development becomes more and more challenging. Therefore, there is a strong need for improving efficiency of clinical research by developing and applying methods for quantitative decision making. In this context, the integrated planning for phase II/III programs plays an important role as numerous quantities can be varied that are crucial for cost, benefit, and program success. Recently, a utility‐based framework has been proposed for an optimal planning of phase II/III programs that puts the choice of decision boundaries and phase II sample sizes on a quantitative basis. However, this method is restricted to studies with a single time‐to‐event endpoint. We generalize this procedure to the setting of clinical trials with multiple endpoints and (asymptotically) normally distributed test statistics. Optimal phase II sample sizes and go/no‐go decision rules are provided for both the “all‐or‐none” and “at‐least‐one” win criteria. Application of the proposed method is illustrated by drug development programs in the fields of Alzheimer disease and oncology.     

AIDE: Adaptive intrapatient dose escalation designs to accelerate Phase I clinical trials

Designing Phase I clinical trials is challenging when accrual is slow or sample size is limited. The corresponding key question is: how to efficiently and reliably identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) using a sample size as small as possible? We propose model-assisted and model-based designs with adaptive intrapatient dose escalation (AIDE) to address this challenge. AIDE is adaptive in that the decision of conducting intrapatient dose escalation depends on both the patient's individual safety data, as well as other enrolled patient's safety data. When both data indicate reasonable safety, a patient may perform intrapatient dose escalation, generating toxicity data at more than one dose. This strategy not only provides patients the opportunity to receive higher potentially more effective doses, but also enables efficient statistical learning of the dose-toxicity profile of the treatment, which dramatically reduces the required sample size. Simulation studies show that the proposed designs are safe, robust, and efficient to identify the MTD with a sample size that is substantially smaller than conventional interpatient dose escalation designs. Practical considerations are provided and R code for implementing AIDE is available upon request.     

The treatment versus experimentation dilemma in dose finding studies

Phase I clinical trials are conducted in order to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a given drug from a finite set of doses. For ethical reasons, these studies are usually sequential, treating patients or groups of patients with the optimal dose according to the current knowledge, with the hope that this will lead to using the true MTD from some time on. However, the first result proved here is that this goal is infeasible, and that such designs, and, more generally, designs that concentrate on one dose from some time on, cannot provide consistent estimators for the MTD unless very strong parametric assumptions hold. Allowing some non-MTD treatment, we construct a randomized design that assigns the MTD with probability that approaches one as the size of the experiment goes to infinity and estimates the MTD consistently. We compare the suggested design with several methods by simulations, studying their performances in terms of correct estimation of the MTD and the proportion of individuals treated with the MTD.     

Dose intra-subject escalation to an event (DIETE): A new method for phase 1 dose-finding utilizing systematic intra-subject dose escalation with application to T-cell engagers

T-cell engagers are a class of oncology drugs which engage T-cells to initiate immune response against malignant cells. T-cell engagers have features that are unlike prior classes of oncology drugs (e.g., chemotherapies or targeted therapies), because (1) starting dose level often must be conservative due to immune-related side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS); (2) dose level can usually be safely titrated higher as a result of subject's immune system adaptation after first exposure to lower dose; and (3) due to preventive management of CRS, these safety events rarely worsen to become dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). It is generally believed that for T-cell engagers the dose intensity of the starting dose and the peak dose intensity both correlate with improved efficacy. Existing dose finding methodologies are not designed to efficiently identify both the initial starting dose and peak dose intensity in a single trial. In this study, we propose a new trial design, dose intra-subject escalation to an event (DIETE) design, that can (1) estimate the maximum tolerated initial dose level (MTD1); and (2) incorporate systematic intra-subject dose-escalation to estimate the maximum tolerated dose level subsequent to adaptation induced by the initial dose level (MTD2) with a survival analysis approach. We compare our framework to similar methodologies and evaluate their key operating characteristics.     

Adaptative Designs for Multi-Arm Clinical Trials: The Play-the-Winner Rule Revisited

Adaptative designs for clinical trials that are based on a generalization of the “play-the-winner” rule are considered as an alternative to previously developed models. Theoretical and numerical results show that these designs perform better for the usual criteria. Bayesian methods are proposed for the statistical analysis of these designs.     

An adaptive model switching approach for phase I dose‐finding trials

Model‐based phase I dose‐finding designs rely on a single model throughout the study for estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Thus, one major concern is about the choice of the most suitable model to be used. This is important because the dose allocation process and the MTD estimation depend on whether or not the model is reliable, or whether or not it gives a better fit to toxicity data. The aim of our work was to propose a method that would remove the need for a model choice prior to the trial onset and then allow it sequentially at each patient's inclusion. In this paper, we described model checking approach based on the posterior predictive check and model comparison approach based on the deviance information criterion, in order to identify a more reliable or better model during the course of a trial and to support clinical decision making. Further, we presented two model switching designs for a phase I cancer trial that were based on the aforementioned approaches, and performed a comparison between designs with or without model switching, through a simulation study. The results showed that the proposed designs had the advantage of decreasing certain risks, such as those of poor dose allocation and failure to find the MTD, which could occur if the model is misspecified. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.