Unifying CRM and EWOC designs for phase I cancer clinical trials

The main goal of phase I cancer clinical trials is to determine the highest dose of a new therapy associated with an acceptable level of toxicity for the use in a subsequent phase II trial. The continual reassessment method (CRM) [O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M., Fisher, L., 1990. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33–48] and escalation with overdose control (EWOC) [Babb, J., Rogatko, A., Zacks, S., 1998. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statist. Med. 17 (10), 1103–1120] are two model-based designs used for phase I cancer clinical trials. A few modifications of the (original) CRM and EWOC have been made by many authors. In this paper, we show how CRM and EWOC can be unified and present a hybrid design. We study the characteristics of the approach of the hybrid design. The comparisons of the three designs (CRM, EWOC, and the hybrid design) are presented by convergence rates and overdose proportions. The simulation results show that the hybrid design generally has faster convergence rates than EWOC and smaller overdose proportions than CRM, especially when the true maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is above the mid-level of the dose range considered. The performance of these three designs is also evaluated in terms of sensitivity to outliers.     

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 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.     

Parametric non-mixture cure models for schedule finding of therapeutic agents

We propose a phase I clinical trial design that seeks to determine the cumulative safety of a series of administrations of a fixed dose of an investigational agent. In contrast with traditional phase I trials that are designed solely to find the maximum tolerated dose of the agent, our design instead identifies a maximum tolerated schedule that includes a maximum tolerated dose as well as a vector of recommended administration times. Our model is based on a non-mixture cure model that constrains the probability of dose limiting toxicity for all patients to increase monotonically with both dose and the number of administrations received. We assume a specific parametric hazard function for each administration and compute the total hazard of dose limiting toxicity for a schedule as a sum of individual administration hazards. Throughout a variety of settings motivated by an actual study in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients, we demonstrate that our approach has excellent operating characteristics and performs as well as the only other currently published design for schedule finding studies. We also present arguments for the preference of our non-mixture cure model over the existing model.     

Bayesian optimization design for dose-finding based on toxicity and efficacy outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials

In phase I trials, the main goal is to identify a maximum tolerated dose under an assumption of monotonicity in dose–response relationships. On the other hand, such monotonicity is no longer applied to biologic agents because a different mode of action from that of cytotoxic agents potentially draws unimodal or flat dose–efficacy curves. Therefore, biologic agents require an optimal dose that provides a sufficient efficacy rate under an acceptable toxicity rate instead of a maximum tolerated dose. Many trials incorporate both toxicity and efficacy data, and drugs with a variety of modes of actions are increasingly being developed; thus, optimal dose estimation designs have been receiving increased attention. Although numerous authors have introduced parametric model-based designs, it is not always appropriate to apply strong assumptions in dose–response relationships. We propose a new design based on a Bayesian optimization framework for identifying optimal doses for biologic agents in phase I/II trials. Our proposed design models dose–response relationships via nonparametric models utilizing a Gaussian process prior, and the uncertainty of estimates is considered in the dose selection process. We compared the operating characteristics of our proposed design against those of three other designs through simulation studies. These include an expansion of Bayesian optimal interval design, the parametric model-based EffTox design, and the isotonic design. In simulations, our proposed design performed well and provided results that were more stable than those from the other designs, in terms of the accuracy of optimal dose estimations and the percentage of correct recommendations.     

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.     

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.     

Cumulative cohort design for dose-finding

We introduce a new design for dose-finding in the context of toxicity studies for which it is assumed that toxicity increases with dose. The goal is to identify the maximum tolerated dose, which is taken to be the dose associated with a prespecified “target” toxicity rate. The decision to decrease, increase or repeat a dose for the next subject depends on how far an estimated toxicity rate at the current dose is from the target. The size of the window within which the current dose will be repeated is obtained based on the theory of Markov chains as applied to group up-and-down designs. But whereas the treatment allocation rule in Markovian group up-and-down designs is only based on information from the current cohort of subjects, the treatment allocation rule for the proposed design is based on the cumulative information at the current dose. We then consider an extension of this new design for clinical trials in which the subject's outcome is not known immediately. The new design is compared to the continual reassessment method.     

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.     

Improvements to the Escalation with Overdose Control design and a comparison with the restricted Continual Reassessment Method

The Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) design for cancer dose finding clinical trials is a variation of the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) that was proposed to overcome the limitation of the original CRM of exposing patients to high toxic doses. The properties of EWOC have been studied to some extent, but some aspects of the design are not well studied, and its performance is not fully understood. Comparisons of the EWOC design to the most commonly used modified CRM designs have not yet been performed, and the advantages of EWOC over the modified CRM designs are unclear. In this paper, we assess the properties of the EWOC design and of the restricted CRM and some variations of these designs. We show that EWOC has several weaknesses that CRM does not have that make it impractical to use in its original formulation. We propose modified EWOC designs that address some of the weaknesses and that have some desirable statistical properties compared with the original EWOC design, the restricted CRM design, and the 3 + 3 design. However, their statistical properties are sensitive to correct specification of the prior distribution of their parameters and hence nevertheless will need to be used with some caution. The restricted CRM design is shown to have more stable performance across a wider family of dose‐toxicity curves than EWOC and therefore may be a preferable general choice in cancer clinical research.     

A Three-Stage Bayesian Adaptive Phase I/II Design and Simulation Studies

Instead of using traditional separate phase I and II trials, in this article, we propose using a parallel three-stage phase I/II design, incorporating a dose expansion approach to flexibly evaluate the safety and efficacy of dose levels, and to select the optimal dose. In the proposed design, both the toxicity and efficacy responses are binary endpoints. A 3+3-based procedure is used for initial period of dose escalation at stage 1; at this level, the dose can be expanded to stage 2 for exploratory efficacy studies of phase IIa, while simultaneously, the safety testing can advance to a higher dose level. A beta-binomial model is used to model the efficacy responses. There are two placebo-controlled randomization interim monitoring analyses at stage 2 to select the promising doses to be recommended to stage 3 for further efficacy studies of phase IIb. An adaptive randomization approach is used to assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels at stage 3. We examine the properties of the proposed design through extensive simulation studies by using R programming language, and also compare the new design with the conventional design and a competing adaptive Bayesian design. The simulation results show that our design can efficiently assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels and is superior to the two competing designs in terms of total sample size reduction.     

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.     

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.     

Specifications of a continual reassessment method design for phase I trials of combined drugs

In studies of combinations of agents in phase I oncology trials, the dose–toxicity relationship may not be monotone for all combinations, in which case the toxicity probabilities follow a partial order. The continual reassessment method for partial orders (PO‐CRM) is a design for phase I trials of combinations that leans upon identifying possible complete orders associated with the partial order. This article addresses some practical design considerations not previously undertaken when describing the PO‐CRM. We describe an approach in choosing a proper subset of possible orderings, formulated according to the known toxicity relationships within a matrix of combination therapies. Other design issues, such as working model selection and stopping rules, are also discussed. We demonstrate the practical ability of PO‐CRM as a phase I design for combinations through its use in a recent trial designed at the University of Virginia Cancer Center. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Theoretical study of the continual reassessment method

The continual reassessment method (CRM) was first introduced by O’Quigley et al. [1990. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for Phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33–48]. Many articles followed adding to the original ideas, among which are articles by Babb et al. [1998. Cancer Phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statist. Med. 17, 1103–1120], Braun [2002. The bivariate-continual reassessment method. Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clin. Trials 23, 240–256], Chevret [1993. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Statist. Med. 12, 1093–1108], Faries [1994. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Statist. 4, 147–164], Goodman et al. [1995. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statist. Med. 14, 1149–1161], Ishizuka and Ohashi [2001. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Statist. Med. 20, 2661–2681], Legedeza and Ibrahim [2002. Longitudinal design for phase I trials using the continual reassessment method. Controlled Clin. Trials 21, 578–588], Mahmood [2001. Application of preclinical data to initiate the modified continual reassessment method for maximum tolerated dose-finding trial. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 41, 19–24], Moller [1995. An extension of the continual reassessment method using a preliminary up and down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients in order to investigate a greater number of dose levels. Statist. Med. 14, 911–922], O’Quigley [1992. Estimating the probability of toxicity at the recommended dose following a Phase I clinical trial in cancer. Biometrics 48, 853–862], O’Quigley and Shen [1996. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 52, 163–174], O’Quigley et al. (1999), O’Quigley et al. [2002. Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics 3, 51–56], O’Quigley and Paoletti [2003. Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 59, 429–439], Piantodosi et al., 1998. [1998 Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 41, 429–436] and Whitehead and Williamson [1998. Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. J. Biopharm. Statist. 8, 445–467]. The method is broadly described by Storer [1989. Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45, 925–937]. Whether likelihood or Bayesian based, inference poses particular theoretical difficulties in view of working models being under-parameterized. Nonetheless CRM models have proven themselves to be of practical use and, in this work, the aim is to turn the spotlight on the main theoretical ideas underpinning the approach, obtaining results which can provide guidance in practice. Stemming from this theoretical framework are a number of results and some further development, in particular the way to structure a randomized allocation of subjects as well as a more robust approach to the problem of dealing with patient heterogeneity.     

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.     

Patient-specific dose finding in phase I clinical trials

This article proposes an extension of the continual reassessment method to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in the presence of patients' heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials. To start with a simple case, we consider the covariate as a binary variable representing two groups of patients. A logistic regression model is used to establish the dose–response relationship and the design is based on the Bayesian framework. Simulation studies for six plausible dose–response scenarios show that the proposed design is likely to determine the MTD more accurately than the design that does not take covariate into consideration.     

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.     

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.