Volume 17, Issue 10
Research Article

Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control

James Babb

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: babb@canape.fccc.edu

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, 510 Township Line Road, Cheltenham, PA 19012, U.S.A.

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, 510 Township Line Road, Cheltenham, PA 19012, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author
André Rogatko

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, 510 Township Line Road, Cheltenham, PA 19012, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Shelemyahu Zacks

Binghamton University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13901, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

We describe an adaptive dose escalation scheme for use in cancer phase I clinical trials. The method is fully adaptive, makes use of all the information available at the time of each dose assignment, and directly addresses the ethical need to control the probability of overdosing. It is designed to approach the maximum tolerated dose as fast as possible subject to the constraint that the predicted proportion of patients who receive an overdose does not exceed a specified value. We conducted simulations to compare the proposed method with four up‐and‐down designs, two stochastic approximation methods, and with a variant of the continual reassessment method. The results showed the proposed method effective as a means to control the frequency of overdosing. Relative to the continual reassessment method, our scheme overdosed a smaller proportion of patients, exhibited fewer toxicities and estimated the maximum tolerated dose with comparable accuracy. When compared to the non‐parametric schemes, our method treated fewer patients at either subtherapeutic or severely toxic dose levels, treated more patients at optimal dose levels and estimated the maximum tolerated dose with smaller average bias and mean squared error. Hence, the proposed method is promising alternative to currently used cancer phase I clinical trial designs. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 323

  • Safety and efficacy of nazartinib (EGF816) in adults with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 1 study, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30267-X, (2020).
  • Flexible, rule-based dose escalation: The cohort-sequence design, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100541, (100541), (2020).
  • A Bayesian seamless phase I–II trial design with two stages for cancer clinical trials with drug combinations, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201900095, 62, 5, (1300-1314), (2020).
  • Comparison of four warm‐season turfgrass species to natural rainfall or supplemental irrigation in a semiarid climate, Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 10.1002/agg2.20011, 3, 1, (2020).
  • Aromatic L‐Amino Acid Decarboxylase Gene Therapy Enhances Levodopa Response in Parkinson's Disease, Movement Disorders, 10.1002/mds.27993, 35, 5, (851-858), (2020).
  • Cover crop effects on soil carbon dioxide emissions in a semiarid cropping system, Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 10.1002/agg2.20012, 3, 1, (2020).
  • Sequential Search of an Optimal Dosage, The Career of a Research Statistician, 10.1007/978-3-030-39434-9_10, (149-158), (2020).
  • GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10.1186/s12911-020-01149-3, 20, 1, (2020).
  • Dose Finding for Drug Combinations, Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials, 10.1007/978-3-319-52677-5, (1-29), (2020).
  • Fractional design: An alternative paradigm for late-onset toxicities in oncology dose-finding studies, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100650, (100650), (2020).
  • Novel Trial Designs for Early Phase Clinical Trials, Phase I Oncology Drug Development, 10.1007/978-3-030-47682-3, (85-93), (2020).
  • Performance Measures in Dose‐Finding Experiments, International Statistical Review, 10.1111/insr.12363, 0, 0, (2020).
  • Buyer Beware: A Critique of Leading Virtue Ethics Defenses of Markets, Journal of Social Philosophy, 10.1111/josp.12336, 0, 0, (2020).
  • A phase 1b study of the MET inhibitor capmatinib combined with cetuximab in patients with MET-positive colorectal cancer who had progressed following anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment, Investigational New Drugs, 10.1007/s10637-020-00928-z, (2020).
  • A Bayesian Adaptive Design in Cancer Phase I Trials Using Dose Combinations with Ordinal Toxicity Grades, Stats, 10.3390/stats3030017, 3, 3, (221-238), (2020).
  • A comparative study of Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design with interval 3 + 3 (i3 + 3) design for phase I oncology dose-finding trials, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2020.1811147, (1-21), (2020).
  • Checkerboard: a Bayesian efficacy and toxicity interval design for phase I/II dose-finding trials, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815033, (1-20), (2020).
  • On Optimal Designs for Clinical Trials: An Updated Review, Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 10.1007/s42519-019-0073-4, 14, 1, (2019).
  • A phase I study of sirolimus in combination with metronomic therapy (CHOAnome) in children with recurrent or refractory solid and brain tumors, Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 10.1002/pbc.28134, 67, 4, (2019).
  • Phase Ib Study of Combination Therapy with MEK Inhibitor Binimetinib and Phosphatidylinositol 3‐Kinase Inhibitor Buparlisib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors with RAS/RAF Alterations, The Oncologist, 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0297, 25, 1, (e160-e169), (2019).
  • An adaptive trial design to optimize dose‐schedule regimes with delayed outcomes, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.13116, 76, 1, (304-315), (2019).
  • Improving safety of the continual reassessment method via a modified allocation rule, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8450, 39, 7, (906-922), (2019).
  • Phase 1 study of capmatinib in MET‐positive solid tumor patients: Dose escalation and expansion of selected cohorts, Cancer Science, 10.1111/cas.14254, 111, 2, (536-547), (2019).
  • Model-Based Designs Considering Toxicity Alone, Dose-Finding Designs for Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trials, 10.1007/978-4-431-55585-8_3, (33-79), (2019).
  • Safety and efficacy of oral panobinostat plus chemotherapy in patients aged 65 years or younger with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia, Leukemia Research, 10.1016/j.leukres.2019.106197, (106197), (2019).
  • Bayesian Dose Escalation Study Design with Consideration of Both Early and Late Onset Toxicity, Contemporary Biostatistics with Biopharmaceutical Applications, 10.1007/978-3-030-15310-6_12, (225-238), (2019).
  • A new pragmatic design for dose escalation in phase 1 clinical trials using an adaptive continual reassessment method, BMC Cancer, 10.1186/s12885-019-5801-3, 19, 1, (2019).
  • Bayesian uncertainty‐directed dose finding designs, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12355, 68, 5, (1393-1410), (2019).
  • A hybrid phase I‐II/III clinical trial design allowing dose re‐optimization in phase III, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12994, 75, 2, (371-381), (2019).
  • Phase I dose‐escalation study of capmatinib (INC280) in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors, Cancer Science, 10.1111/cas.13956, 110, 4, (1340-1351), (2019).
  • Asciminib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia after ABL Kinase Inhibitor Failure, New England Journal of Medicine, 10.1056/NEJMoa1902328, 381, 24, (2315-2326), (2019).
  • Ceritinib plus Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced ALK-Rearranged Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase 1B Study, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.10.006, (2019).
  • Non‐parametric overdose control for dose finding in drug combination trials, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12349, 68, 4, (1111-1130), (2019).
  • Improving Clinical Trial Design in Gastrointestinal Oncology, Textbook of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 10.1007/978-3-030-18890-0, (493-507), (2019).
  • Improvements to the Escalation with Overdose Control design and a comparison with the restricted Continual Reassessment Method, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1955, 18, 6, (659-670), (2019).
  • Model-Assisted Designs for Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Simplicity Meets Superiority, JCO Precision Oncology, 10.1200/PO.19.00032, 3, (1-12), (2019).
  • Comparison between continuous and discrete doses for model based designs in cancer dose finding, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0210139, 14, 1, (e0210139), (2019).
  • A new design of the continual reassessment method, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 10.1080/03610918.2019.1592191, (1-10), (2019).
  • A robust Bayesian meta-analytic approach to incorporate animal data into phase I oncology trials, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280218820040, (096228021882004), (2019).
  • The first-in-human study of the pan-PIM kinase inhibitor PIM447 in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, Leukemia, 10.1038/s41375-019-0482-0, (2019).
  • Bayesian clinical trials at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: An update, Clinical Trials, 10.1177/1740774519871471, (174077451987147), (2019).
  • A Bayesian zero-inflated binomial regression and its application in dose-finding study, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2019.1684313, (1-12), (2019).
  • Evaluation of irrational dose assignment definitions using the continual reassessment method, Clinical Trials, 10.1177/1740774519873316, (174077451987331), (2019).
  • Doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine and lenalidomide for older Hodgkin lymphoma patients: final results of a German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) phase‐I trial, British Journal of Haematology, 10.1111/bjh.15741, 185, 1, (42-52), (2018).
  • gBOIN: a unified model‐assisted phase I trial design accounting for toxicity grades, and binary or continuous end points, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12263, 68, 2, (289-308), (2018).
  • Two‐stage design for phase I–II cancer clinical trials using continuous dose combinations of cytotoxic agents, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12294, 68, 1, (235-250), (2018).
  • Design and Conduct Considerations for First‐in‐Human Trials, Clinical and Translational Science, 10.1111/cts.12582, 12, 1, (6-19), (2018).
  • Cancer phase I trial design using drug combinations when a fraction of dose limiting toxicities is attributable to one or more agents, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201700166, 61, 2, (319-332), (2018).
  • Statistical Considerations in Phase I Oncology Trials, Statistical Approaches in Oncology Clinical Development, 10.1201/9781315154435, (5-41), (2018).
  • Interactive calculator for operating characteristics of phase I cancer clinical trials using standard 3+3 designs, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.10.006, (2018).
  • Dose Finding in Phase I Cancer Trials, Modern Dose-Finding Designs for Cancer Phase I Trials: Drug Combinations and Molecularly Targeted Agents, 10.1007/978-4-431-55573-5_1, (1-7), (2018).
  • A Bayesian Adaptive Design in Cancer Phase I Trials Using Dose Combinations in the Presence of a Baseline Covariate, Journal of Probability and Statistics, 10.1155/2018/8654173, 2018, (1-11), (2018).
  • Phase 1/1b dose escalation and expansion study of BEZ235, a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors including patients with advanced breast cancer, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 10.1007/s00280-018-3610-z, 82, 2, (285-298), (2018).
  • Patient-specific dose finding in phase I clinical trials, Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.1080/02664763.2018.1428735, 45, 14, (2607-2618), (2018).
  • The Evolution of Phase I Trials, Past, Present, and Future, Novel Designs of Early Phase Trials for Cancer Therapeutics, 10.1016/B978-0-12-812512-0.00003-8, (17-32), (2018).
  • How to Design Phase I Trials in Oncology, Methods and Biostatistics in Oncology, 10.1007/978-3-319-71324-3, (165-187), (2018).
  • Changing Landscape of Early Phase Clinical Trials, Novel Designs of Early Phase Trials for Cancer Therapeutics, 10.1016/B978-0-12-812512-0.00001-4, (1-6), (2018).
  • Early-drug development in the era of immuno-oncology: are we ready to face the challenges?, Annals of Oncology, 10.1093/annonc/mdy225, 29, 8, (1727-1740), (2018).
  • Motivating sample sizes in adaptive Phase I trials via Bayesian posterior credible intervals, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12872, 74, 3, (1065-1071), (2018).
  • Dose‐escalation strategies which use subgroup information, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1860, 17, 5, (414-436), (2018).
  • Uniformly most powerful Bayesian interval design for phase I dose‐finding trials, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1889, 17, 6, (710-724), (2018).
  • Subgroup‐specific dose finding in phase I clinical trials based on time to toxicity allowing adaptive subgroup combination, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1891, 17, 6, (734-749), (2018).
  • Comparative review of novel model‐assisted designs for phase I clinical trials, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7674, 37, 14, (2208-2222), (2018).
  • Impact of different model structure and prior distribution in continual reassessment method, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 10.1080/03610918.2018.1476698, (1-15), (2018).
  • Phase I study of panobinostat and 5-azacitidine in Japanese patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, International Journal of Hematology, 10.1007/s12185-017-2327-9, 107, 1, (83-91), (2017).
  • A Bayesian adaptive design for cancer phase I trials using a flexible range of doses, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2017.1372774, 28, 3, (562-574), (2017).
  • Phase I study of single‐agent ribociclib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors, Cancer Science, 10.1111/cas.13428, 109, 1, (193-198), (2017).
  • Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1835, 17, 1, (49-60), (2017).
  • Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials, British Journal of Cancer, 10.1038/bjc.2017.186, 117, 3, (332-339), (2017).
  • A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.05.002, 7, (11-17), (2017).
  • Novel Early Phase Clinical Trial Design in Oncology, Pharmaceutical Medicine, 10.1007/s40290-017-0205-7, 31, 5, (297-307), (2017).
  • A phase I open-label dose-escalation study of the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody LJM716 in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or head and neck and HER2-overexpressing breast or gastric cancer, BMC Cancer, 10.1186/s12885-017-3641-6, 17, 1, (2017).
  • Phase I study of oral sonidegib (LDE225) in pediatric brain and solid tumors and a phase II study in children and adults with relapsed medulloblastoma, Neuro-Oncology, 10.1093/neuonc/nox109, 19, 11, (1542-1552), (2017).
  • A phase 1b/2b multicenter study of oral panobinostat plus azacitidine in adults with MDS, CMML or AML with ⩽30% blasts, Leukemia, 10.1038/leu.2017.159, 31, 12, (2799-2806), (2017).
  • Model-Based Designs for Safety, Handbook of Methods for Designing, Monitoring, and Analyzing Dose-Finding Trials, 10.1201/9781315151984, (27-44), (2017).
  • The Randomized CRM: An Approach to Overcoming the Long-Memory Property of the CRM, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2017.1293076, 27, 6, (1028-1042), (2017).
  • Formulation, Analytical, and Regulatory Strategies for First‐in‐Human Clinical Trials, Oral Formulation Roadmap from Early Drug Discovery to Development, 10.1002/9781118907894, (165-241), (2017).
  • Dose‐finding methods for Phase I clinical trials using pharmacokinetics in small populations, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201600084, 59, 4, (804-825), (2017).
  • Statistical issues in first‐in‐human studies on BIA 10‐2474: Neglected comparison of protocol against practice, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1801, 16, 2, (100-106), (2017).
  • Bayesian adaptive dose‐escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1818, 16, 6, (396-413), (2017).
  • Toxicity‐dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase I cancer trials, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7280, 36, 16, (2499-2513), (2017).
  • Adaptive Dose-Response Studies, Drug Information Journal, 10.1177/216847900604000411, 40, 4, (451-461), (2017).
  • Adaptive Designs: Terminology and Classification, Drug Information Journal, 10.1177/216847900604000408, 40, 4, (425-435), (2017).
  • Hierarchical models for sharing information across populations in phase I dose-escalation studies, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280217703812, (096228021770381), (2017).
  • Adaptive Estimation of Personalized Maximum Tolerated Dose in Cancer Phase I Clinical Trials Based on All Toxicities and Individual Genomic Profile, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0170187, 12, 1, (e0170187), (2017).
  • Optimizing drug development in oncology by clinical trial simulation: Why and how?, Briefings in Bioinformatics, 10.1093/bib/bbx055, (2017).
  • A new Bayesian dose finding design for drug combination trials, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2017.1388834, (0-0), (2017).
  • Incoherent dose-escalation in phase I trials using the escalation with overdose control approach, Statistical Papers, 10.1007/s00362-016-0790-7, 59, 2, (801-811), (2016).
  • LJM716 in Japanese patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma or HER2-overexpressing breast or gastric cancer, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 10.1007/s00280-016-3214-4, 79, 1, (131-138), (2016).
  • Developing a Bayesian adaptive design for a phase I clinical trial: a case study for a novel HIV treatment, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7169, 36, 5, (754-771), (2016).
  • A Bayesian adaptive design for estimating the maximum tolerated dose curve using drug combinations in cancer phase I clinical trials, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6961, 36, 2, (280-290), (2016).
  • Identifying a maximum tolerated contour in two‐dimensional dose finding, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6918, 36, 2, (242-253), (2016).
  • A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6941, 36, 2, (266-279), (2016).
  • Response‐adaptive clinical trials: case studies in the medical literature, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1778, 16, 1, (64-86), (2016).
  • Novel dose-finding designs and considerations on practical implementations in oncology clinical trials, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2016.1148715, 27, 1, (44-55), (2016).
  • Overview of Oncology Drug Development, Pharmacokinetics in Drug Development, 10.1007/978-3-319-39053-6, (1-27), (2016).
  • Innovations for phase I dose-finding designs in pediatric oncology clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.cct.2016.01.009, 47, (217-227), (2016).
  • A comparison between the continual reassessment method and D-optimum design for dose finding in phase I clinical trials, Biometrical Letters, 10.1515/bile-2016-0006, 53, 2, (69-82), (2016).
  • Phase I, multicenter, open‐label, dose‐escalation study of sonidegib in Asian patients with advanced solid tumors, Cancer Science, 10.1111/cas.13022, 107, 10, (1477-1483), (2016).
  • The rapid enrollment design for Phase I clinical trials, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6886, 35, 15, (2516-2524), (2016).
  • See more

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.