2,459 research outputs found
Continual Reassessment and Related Dose-Finding Designs
During the last twenty years there have been considerable methodological
developments in the design and analysis of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 1/2
dose-finding studies. Many of these developments are related to the continual
reassessment method (CRM), first introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe and Fisher
(\citeyearQPF1990). CRM models have proven themselves to be of practical use
and, in this discussion, we investigate the basic approach, some connections to
other methods, some generalizations, as well as further applications of the
model. We obtain some new results which can provide guidance in practice.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-STS332 the Statistical
Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical
Statistics (http://www.imstat.org
A Bayesian time-to-event pharmacokinetic model for sequential phase I dose-escalation trials with multiple schedules
Phase I dose-escalation trials constitute the first step in investigating the
safety of potentially promising drugs in humans. Conventional methods for phase
I dose-escalation trials are based on a single treatment schedule only. More
recently, however, multiple schedules are more frequently investigated in the
same trial. Here, we consider sequential phase I trials, where the trial
proceeds with a new schedule (e.g. daily or weekly dosing) once the dose
escalation with another schedule has been completed. The aim is to utilize the
information from both the completed and the ongoing dose-escalation trial to
inform decisions on the dose level for the next dose cohort. For this purpose,
we adapted the time-to-event pharmacokinetics (TITE-PK) model, which were
originally developed for simultaneous investigation of multiple schedules.
TITE-PK integrates information from multiple schedules using a pharmacokinetics
(PK) model. In a simulation study, the developed appraoch is compared to the
bridging continual reassessment method and the Bayesian logistic regression
model using a meta-analytic-prior. TITE-PK results in better performance than
comparators in terms of recommending acceptable dose and avoiding overly toxic
doses for sequential phase I trials in most of the scenarios considered.
Furthermore, better performance of TITE-PK is achieved while requiring similar
number of patients in the simulated trials. For the scenarios involving one
schedule, TITE-PK displays similar performance with alternatives in terms of
acceptable dose recommendations. The \texttt{R} and \texttt{Stan} code for the
implementation of an illustrative sequential phase I trial example is publicly
available at https://github.com/gunhanb/TITEPK_sequential
Recommended from our members
On optimal designs for clinical trials: An updated review
Optimization of clinical trial designs can help investigators achieve higher qualityresults for the given resource constraints. The present paper gives an overviewof optimal designs for various important problems that arise in different stages ofclinical drug development, including phase I dose–toxicity studies; phase I/II studiesthat consider early efficacy and toxicity outcomes simultaneously; phase IIdose–response studies driven by multiple comparisons (MCP), modeling techniques(Mod), or their combination (MCP–Mod); phase III randomized controlled multiarmmulti-objective clinical trials to test difference among several treatment groups;and population pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics experiments. We find thatmodern literature is very rich with optimal design methodologies that can be utilizedby clinical researchers to improve efficiency of drug development
Dose Finding with Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) in Cancer Clinical Trials
Traditionally, the major objective in phase I trials is to identify a
working-dose for subsequent studies, whereas the major endpoint in phase II and
III trials is treatment efficacy. The dose sought is typically referred to as
the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Several statistical methodologies have been
proposed to select the MTD in cancer phase I trials. In this manuscript, we
focus on a Bayesian adaptive design, known as escalation with overdose control
(EWOC). Several aspects of this design are discussed, including large sample
properties of the sequence of doses selected in the trial, choice of prior
distributions, and use of covariates. The methodology is exemplified with
real-life examples of cancer phase I trials. In particular, we show in the
recently completed ABR-217620 (naptumomab estafenatox) trial that omitting an
important predictor of toxicity when dose assignments to cancer patients are
determined results in a high percent of patients experiencing severe side
effects and a significant proportion treated at sub-optimal doses.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-STS333 the Statistical
Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical
Statistics (http://www.imstat.org
Phase 1 dose escalation study of the allosteric AKT inhibitor BAY 1125976 in advanced solid cancer-Lack of association between activating AKT mutation and AKT inhibition-derived efficacy
This open-label, phase I first-in-human study (NCT01915576) of BAY 1125976, a highly specific and potent allosteric inhibitor of AKT1/2, aimed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and maximum tolerated dose of BAY 1125976 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Oral dose escalation was investigated with a continuous once daily (QD) treatment (21 days/cycle) and a twice daily (BID) schedule. A dose expansion in 28 patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer, including nine patients harboring th
A robust Bayesian meta-analytic approach to incorporate animal data into phase I oncology trials
Before a first-in-man trial is conducted, preclinical studies are performed in animals to help characterise the safety profile of the new medicine. We propose a robust Bayesian hierarchical model to synthesise animal and human toxicity data, using scaling factors to translate doses administered to different animal species onto an equivalent human scale. After scaling doses, the parameters of dose-toxicity models intrinsic to different animal species can be interpreted on a common scale. A prior distribution is specified for each translation factor to capture uncertainty about differences between toxicity of the drug in animals and humans. Information from animals can then be leveraged to learn about the relationship between dose and risk of toxicity in a new phase I trial in humans. The model allows human dose-toxicity parameters to be exchangeable with the study-specific parameters of animal species studied so far or non-exchangeable with any of them. This leads to robust inferences, enabling the model to give greatest weight to the animal data with parameters most consistent with human parameters or discount all animal data in the case of non exchangeability. The proposed model is illustrated using a case study and simulations. Numerical results suggest that our proposal improves the precision of estimates of the toxicity rates when animal and human data are consistent, while it discounts animal data in cases of inconsistency
Methodology and Application of Adaptive and Sequential Approaches
The clinical trial, a prospective study to evaluate the effect of interventions in humans under prespecified conditions, is a standard and integral part of modern medicine. Many adaptive and sequential approaches have been proposed for use in clinical trials to allow adaptations or modifications to aspects of a trial after its initiation without undermining the validity and integrity of the trial. The application of adaptive and sequential methods in clinical trials has significantly improved the flexibility, efficiency, therapeutic effect, and validity of trials. To further advance the performance of clinical trials and convey the progress of research on adaptive and sequential methods in clinical trial design, we review significant research that has explored novel adaptive and sequential approaches and their applications in Phase I, II, and III clinical trials and discuss future directions in this field of research
- …