IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0051039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency of New Dose Escalation Designs in Dose-Finding Phase I Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents

Author

Listed:
  • Christophe Le Tourneau
  • Hui K Gan
  • Albiruni R A Razak
  • Xavier Paoletti

Abstract

Background: Statistical simulations have consistently demonstrated that new dose-escalation designs such as accelerated titration design (ATD) and continual reassessment method (CRM)-type designs outperform the standard “3+3” design in phase I cancer clinical trials. Methods: We evaluated the actual efficiency of different dose escalation methods employed in first-in-human phase I clinical trials of targeted agents administered as single agents published over the last decade. Results: Forty-nine per cent of the 84 retrieved trials used the standard “3+3” design. Newer designs used included ATD in 42%, modified CRM [mCRM] in 7%, and pharmacologically guided dose escalation in 1%. The median numbers of dose levels explored in trials using “3+3”, ATD and mCRM designs were 6, 8 and 10, respectively. More strikingly, the mean MTD to starting dose ratio appeared to be at least twice as high for trials using mCRM or ATD designs as for trials using a standard “3+3” design. Despite this, the mean number of patients exposed to a dose below the MTD was similar in trials using “3+3”, ATD and mCRM designs. Conclusion: Our results support a more extensive implementation of innovative dose escalation designs such as mCRM and ATD in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Christophe Le Tourneau & Hui K Gan & Albiruni R A Razak & Xavier Paoletti, 2012. "Efficiency of New Dose Escalation Designs in Dose-Finding Phase I Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-3, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051039
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051039
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051039&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0051039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter F. Thall & John D. Cook, 2004. "Dose-Finding Based on Efficacy–Toxicity Trade-Offs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 684-693, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chunyan Cai & Ying Yuan & Yuan Ji, 2014. "A Bayesian dose finding design for oncology clinical trials of combinational biological agents," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(1), pages 159-173, January.
    2. Sergei Leonov & Bahjat Qaqish, 2020. "Correlated endpoints: simulation, modeling, and extreme correlations," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 741-766, April.
    3. Peter F. Thall & Aniko Szabo & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Catherine M. Amlie-Lefond & Osama O. Zaidat, 2011. "Optimizing the Concentration and Bolus of a Drug Delivered by Continuous Infusion," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1638-1646, December.
    4. Nadine Houede & Peter F. Thall & Hoang Nguyen & Xavier Paoletti & Andrew Kramar, 2010. "Utility-Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 532-540, June.
    5. B. Nebiyou Bekele & Yu Shen, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Jointly Modeling Toxicity and Biomarker Expression in a Phase I/II Dose-Finding Trial," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 343-354, June.
    6. Ying Kuen Cheung, 2014. "Simple benchmark for complex dose finding studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 389-397, June.
    7. Laura Deldossi & Silvia Angela Osmetti & Chiara Tommasi, 2019. "Optimal design to discriminate between rival copula models for a bivariate binary response," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 28(1), pages 147-165, March.
    8. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Ralph G. Zinner, 2017. "Parametric dose standardization for optimizing two-agent combinations in a phase I–II trial with ordinal outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(1), pages 201-224, January.
    9. Alam, M. Iftakhar & Bogacka, Barbara & Coad, D. Stephen, 2017. "Pharmacokinetically guided optimum adaptive dose selection in early phase clinical trials," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 183-202.
    10. Ying Yuan & Guosheng Yin, 2009. "Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(5), pages 719-736, December.
    11. Yuxi Tao & Junlin Liu & Zhihui Li & Jinguan Lin & Tao Lu & Fangrong Yan, 2013. "Dose-Finding Based on Bivariate Efficacy-Toxicity Outcome Using Archimedean Copula," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    12. Shenghua Fan & Bee Leng Lee & Ying Lu, 2020. "A Curve-Free Bayesian Decision-Theoretic Design for Phase Ia/Ib Trials Considering Both Safety and Efficacy Outcomes," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(2), pages 146-166, July.
    13. Guosheng Yin & Yisheng Li & Yuan Ji, 2006. "Bayesian Dose-Finding in Phase I/II Clinical Trials Using Toxicity and Efficacy Odds Ratios," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 777-787, September.
    14. Jay Bartroff & Tze Leung Lai, 2011. "Incorporating Individual and Collective Ethics into Phase I Cancer Trial Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 596-603, June.
    15. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Elihu H. Estey, 2008. "Patient-Specific Dose Finding Based on Bivariate Outcomes and Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1126-1136, December.
    16. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Thomas M. Braun & Muzaffar H. Qazilbash, 2013. "Using Joint Utilities of the Times to Response and Toxicity to Adaptively Optimize Schedule–Dose Regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 673-682, September.
    17. Souvik Banerjee & Triparna Bose & Vijay M. Patil & Atanu Bhattacharjee & Kumar Prabhash, 2023. "Bayesian Effective Biological Dose Determination in Immunotherapy Response Trial," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 209-223, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.