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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Designs foe phase i cancer clinical trials with differentiation of graded toxicity

For phase I cancer clinical trials, toxicity is a major concern. Commonly, toxicity is categorized to five levels of severity. In addition to the traditional standard dose-escaiation design, the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) provides a promising alternative to estimate the maximum tolerated dose of a drug. However, in both standard design (STD) and CRM, the severity level of toxicity on grade 3/4 of a previous patient's response would not be a differentiated factor for the next dose level assignment. In this study, we extend the procedure incorporating the idea of unequal weights on the assessments of grade 3 and grade 4 toxicity in the dose escalation. The simulation results show that the proposed extended procedures by taking the impact of grade 4 toxicity into account, both for STD and CRM, reduce the chance of recommendation to the higher dose levels. Similar trends are observed for patient allocation to the higher levels. Additionally, for CRM which performs more accurately on the estimation of maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the proposed extended CRM maintains the same characteristic.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Characterization of dose‐response for count data using a generalized MCP‐Mod approach in an adaptive dose‐ranging trial

Understanding the dose–response relationship is a key objective in Phase II clinical development. Yet, designing a dose‐ranging trial is a challenging task, as it requires identifying the therapeutic window and the shape of the dose–response curve for a new drug on the basis of a limited number of doses. Adaptive designs have been proposed as a solution to improve both quality and efficiency of Phase II trials as they give the possibility to select the dose to be tested as the trial goes. In this article, we present a ‘shapebased’ two‐stage adaptive trial design where the doses to be tested in the second stage are determined based on the correlation observed between efficacy of the doses tested in the first stage and a set of pre‐specified candidate dose–response profiles. At the end of the trial, the data are analyzed using the generalized MCP‐Mod approach in order to account for model uncertainty. A simulation study shows that this approach gives more precise estimates of a desired target dose (e.g. ED70) than a single‐stage (fixed‐dose) design and performs as well as a two‐stage D‐optimal design. We present the results of an adaptive model‐based dose‐ranging trial in multiple sclerosis that motivated this research and was conducted using the presented methodology. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Calculation of Phase 2 dose-finding study sample size for reliable Phase 3 dose selection

Sample sizes of Phase 2 dose-finding studies, usually determined based on a power requirement to detect a significant dose–response relationship, will generally not provide adequate precision for Phase 3 target dose selection. We propose to calculate the sample size of a dose-finding study based on the probability of successfully identifying the target dose within an acceptable range (e.g., 80%–120% of the target) using the multiple comparison and modeling procedure (MCP-Mod). With the proposed approach, different design options for the Phase 2 dose-finding study can also be compared. Due to inherent uncertainty around an assumed true dose–response relationship, sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the sample size calculations to deviations from modeling assumptions are recommended. Planning for a hypothetical Phase 2 dose-finding study is used to illustrate the main points. Codes for the proposed approach is available at https://github.com/happysundae/posMCPMod .     

Analysis of dose-response in flexible dose titration clinical studies

Assessing dose-response from flexible-dose clinical trials (e.g., titration or dose escalation studies) is challenging and often problematic due to the selection bias caused by 'titration-to-response'. We investigate the performance of a dynamic linear mixed-effects (DLME) model and marginal structural model (MSM) in evaluating dose-response from flexible-dose titration clinical trials via simulations. The simulation results demonstrated that DLME models with previous exposure as a time-varying covariate may provide an unbiased and efficient estimator to recover exposure-response relationship from flexible-dose clinical trials. Although the MSM models with independent and exchangeable working correlations appeared to be able to recover the right direction of the dose-response relationship, it tended to over-correct selection bias and overestimated the underlying true dose-response. The MSM estimators were also associated with large variability in the parameter estimates. Therefore, DLME may be an appropriate modeling option in identifying dose-response when data from fixed-dose studies are absent or a fixed-dose design is unethical to be implemented.     

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.     

Locally optimal designs for some dose–response models with continuous endpoints

We consider the problem of constructing static (or non sequential), approximate optimal designs for a class of dose–response models with continuous outcomes. We obtain conditions for a design being D-optimal or c-optimal. The designs are locally optimal in that they depend on the model parameters. The efficiency studies show that these designs have high efficiency when the mis-specification of the initial values of model parameters is not severe. A case study indicates that using an optimal design may result in a significant saving of resources.     

Identification of the minimum effective dose based on weighted Kaplan–Meier statistics

Testing procedures are considered for identifying the minimum effective dose (MED) in a dose–response study with randomly right-censored survival data, where the MED is defined to be the smallest dose level under study that has survival advantage over the zero dose control. The proposed testing procedures are implemented in a step-down manner together with three different types of weighted Kaplan–Meier statistics. Comparative results of a Monte Carlo error rate and power/bias study for a variety of survival and censoring distributions are then presented and discussed. The application of the proposed procedures is finally illustrated for identifying the MED of the diethylstilbestrol in the treatment of prostate cancer.     

Adaptive modelling of dose–response relationships using smoothing splines

We consider the use of smoothing splines for the adaptive modelling of dose–response relationships. A smoothing spline is a nonparametric estimator of a function that is a compromise between the fit to the data and the degree of smoothness and thus provides a flexible way of modelling dose–response data. In conjunction with decision rules for which doses to continue with after an interim analysis, it can be used to give an adaptive way of modelling the relationship between dose and response. We fit smoothing splines using the generalized cross‐validation criterion for deciding on the degree of smoothness and we use estimated bootstrap percentiles of the predicted values for each dose to decide upon which doses to continue with after an interim analysis. We compare this approach with a corresponding adaptive analysis of variance approach based upon new simulations of the scenarios previously used by the PhRMA Working Group on Adaptive Dose‐Ranging Studies. The results obtained for the adaptive modelling of dose–response data using smoothing splines are mostly comparable with those previously obtained by the PhRMA Working Group for the Bayesian Normal Dynamic Linear model (GADA) procedure. These methods may be useful for carrying out adaptations, detecting dose–response relationships and identifying clinically relevant doses. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adaptive Bayesian compound designs for dose finding studies

We consider the problem of how to efficiently and safely design dose finding studies. Both current and novel utility functions are explored using Bayesian adaptive design methodology for the estimation of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In particular, we explore widely adopted approaches such as the continual reassessment method and minimizing the variance of the estimate of an MTD. New utility functions are constructed in the Bayesian framework and are evaluated against current approaches. To reduce computing time, importance sampling is implemented to re-weight posterior samples thus avoiding the need to draw samples using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. Further, as such studies are generally first-in-man, the safety of patients is paramount. We therefore explore methods for the incorporation of safety considerations into utility functions to ensure that only safe and well-predicted doses are administered. The amalgamation of Bayesian methodology, adaptive design and compound utility functions is termed adaptive Bayesian compound design (ABCD). The performance of this amalgamation of methodology is investigated via the simulation of dose finding studies. The paper concludes with a discussion of results and extensions that could be included into our approach.