TSNP: A two-stage nonparametric phase I/II clinical trial design for immunotherapy

We develop a transparent and efficient two-stage nonparametric (TSNP) phase I/II clinical trial design to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) of immunotherapy. We propose a nonparametric approach to derive the closed-form estimates of the joint toxicity–efficacy response probabilities under the monotonic increasing constraint for the toxicity outcomes. These estimates are then used to measure the immunotherapy's toxicity–efficacy profiles at each dose and guide the dose finding. The first stage of the design aims to explore the toxicity profile. The second stage aims to find the OBD, which can achieve the optimal therapeutic effect by considering both the toxicity and efficacy outcomes through a utility function. The closed-form estimates and concise dose-finding algorithm make the TSNP design appealing in practice. The simulation results show that the TSNP design yields superior operating characteristics than the existing Bayesian parametric designs. User-friendly computational software is freely available to facilitate the application of the proposed design to real trials. We provide comprehensive illustrations and examples about implementing the proposed design with associated software.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Bayesian single-arm phase II trial designs with time-to-event endpoints

For the cancer clinical trials with immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapy, time-to-event endpoint is often a desired endpoint. In this paper, we present an event-driven approach for Bayesian one-stage and two-stage single-arm phase II trial designs. Two versions of Bayesian one-stage designs were proposed with executable algorithms and meanwhile, we also develop theoretical relationships between the frequentist and Bayesian designs. These findings help investigators who want to design a trial using Bayesian approach have an explicit understanding of how the frequentist properties can be achieved. Moreover, the proposed Bayesian designs using the exact posterior distributions accommodate the single-arm phase II trials with small sample sizes. We also proposed an optimal two-stage approach, which can be regarded as an extension of Simon's two-stage design with the time-to-event endpoint. Comprehensive simulations were conducted to explore the frequentist properties of the proposed Bayesian designs and an R package BayesDesign can be assessed via R CRAN for convenient use of the proposed methods.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Time-to-event calibration-free odds design: A robust efficient design for phase I trials with late-onset outcomes

Compared with most of the existing phase I designs, the recently proposed calibration-free odds (CFO) design has been demonstrated to be robust, model-free, and easy to use in practice. However, the original CFO design cannot handle late-onset toxicities, which have been commonly encountered in phase I oncology dose-finding trials with targeted agents or immunotherapies. To account for late-onset outcomes, we extend the CFO design to its time-to-event (TITE) version, which inherits the calibration-free and model-free properties. One salient feature of CFO-type designs is to adopt game theory by competing three doses at a time, including the current dose and the two neighboring doses, while interval-based designs only use the data at the current dose and is thus less efficient. We conduct comprehensive numerical studies for the TITE-CFO design under both fixed and randomly generated scenarios. TITE-CFO shows robust and efficient performances compared with interval-based and model-based counterparts. As a conclusion, the TITE-CFO design provides robust, efficient, and easy-to-use alternatives for phase I trials when the toxicity outcome is late-onset.     

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 dose‐escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy

The main purpose of dose‐escalation trials is to identify the dose(s) that is/are safe and efficacious for further investigations in later studies. In this paper, we introduce dose‐escalation designs that incorporate both the dose‐limiting events and dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) and indicative responses of efficacy into the procedure. A flexible nonparametric model is used for modelling the continuous efficacy responses while a logistic model is used for the binary DLTs. Escalation decisions are based on the combination of the probabilities of DLTs and expected efficacy through a gain function. On the basis of this setup, we then introduce 2 types of Bayesian adaptive dose‐escalation strategies. The first type of procedures, called “single objective,” aims to identify and recommend a single dose, either the maximum tolerated dose, the highest dose that is considered as safe, or the optimal dose, a safe dose that gives optimum benefit risk. The second type, called “dual objective,” aims to jointly estimate both the maximum tolerated dose and the optimal dose accurately. The recommended doses obtained under these dose‐escalation procedures provide information about the safety and efficacy profile of the novel drug to facilitate later studies. We evaluate different strategies via simulations based on an example constructed from a real trial on patients with type 2 diabetes, and the use of stopping rules is assessed. We find that the nonparametric model estimates the efficacy responses well for different underlying true shapes. The dual‐objective designs give better results in terms of identifying the 2 real target doses compared to the single‐objective designs.     

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.     

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.     

Optimal designs for contingent response models with application to toxicity–efficacy studies

We describe a general family of contingent response models. These models have ternary outcomes constructed from two Bernoulli outcomes, where one outcome is only observed if the other outcome is positive. This family is represented in a canonical form which yields general results for its Fisher information. A bivariate extreme value distribution illustrates the model and optimal design results. To provide a motivating context, we call the two binary events that compose the contingent responses toxicity and efficacy. Efficacy or lack thereof is assumed only to be observable in the absence of toxicity, resulting in the ternary response (toxicity, efficacy without toxicity, neither efficacy nor toxicity). The rate of toxicity, and the rate of efficacy conditional on no toxicity, are assumed to increase with dose. While optimal designs for contingent response models are numerically found, limiting optimal designs can be expressed in closed forms. In particular, in the family of four parameter bivariate location-scale models we study, as the marginal probability functions of toxicity and no efficacy diverge, limiting D optimal designs are shown to consist of a mixture of the D optimal designs for each failure (toxicity and no efficacy) univariately. Limiting designs are also obtained for the case of equal scale parameters.     

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.     

Adaptive designs for selecting drug combinations based on efficacy–toxicity response

We propose a new adaptive procedure for dose-finding in clinical trials with combination of two drugs when both efficacy and toxicity responses are available. We model the distribution of this bivariate binary endpoint using the bivariate probit model. The analytic formulae for the Fisher information matrix are obtained, that form the basis for derivation of the locally optimal, minimax, Bayesian, and adaptive designs in the framework of optimal design theory.     

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.