Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes

In traditional phase I and II clinical trial designs, toxicity and efficacy are often modelled as binary outcomes. Such methods ignore information on when the outcome event occurs, such as experiencing toxicity or achieving cure or remission. They also have difficulty accommodating a high accrual rate under which toxicity and efficacy outcomes cannot be observed in a timely manner, and thus delay treatment assignment. To address these issues, we propose a Bayesian adaptive phase I-II design that jointly models toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. At each decision-making time, patients who have not experienced toxicity or efficacy are naturally censored. We apply the marginal cure rate model to account explicitly for those patients who are insusceptible to efficacy owing to drug resistance. The correlation between the bivariate time-to-toxicity and time-to-efficacy outcomes is properly adjusted through the Clayton model. After screening out the excessively toxic or futile doses, we adaptively assign each new patient to the most appropriate dose on the basis of the ratio of the areas under the predicted survival curves corresponding to toxicity and efficacy. We conducted extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the method proposed, and we illustrate the application of the method in a clinical trial in prostate cancer. Our design selects the target dose with a high probability, treats most patients at the desirable dose and potentially shortens the duration of a trial. Copyright (c) 2009 Royal Statistical Society.

[1]  Jeffrey R. Eisele,et al.  A Curve‐Free Method for Phase I Clinical Trials , 2000, Biometrics.

[2]  S. Mukhopadhyay,et al.  Bayesian Nonparametric Inference on the Dose Level with Specified Response Rate , 2000, Biometrics.

[3]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Bayesian Dose‐Finding in Phase I/II Clinical Trials Using Toxicity and Efficacy Odds Ratios , 2006, Biometrics.

[4]  Thomas M Braun,et al.  The bivariate continual reassessment method. extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  P. Thall,et al.  Effect of time to complete remission on subsequent survival and disease-free survival time in AML, RAEB-t, and RAEB. , 2000, Blood.

[6]  S. Goodman,et al.  Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent , 2007, Clinical trials.

[8]  Anthony Y. C. Kuk,et al.  A mixture model combining logistic regression with proportional hazards regression , 1992 .

[9]  Y K Cheung,et al.  Sequential Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials with Late‐Onset Toxicities , 2000, Biometrics.

[10]  W. Gilks,et al.  Adaptive Rejection Metropolis Sampling Within Gibbs Sampling , 1995 .

[11]  P. Thall,et al.  Dose‐Finding Based on Efficacy–Toxicity Trade‐Offs , 2004, Biometrics.

[12]  D. Clayton A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence , 1978 .

[13]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Determining a Maximum‐Tolerated Schedule of a Cytotoxic Agent , 2005, Biometrics.

[14]  L V Rubinstein,et al.  A comparison of two phase I trial designs. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. , 1990, Biometrics.

[16]  D. Berry Bayesian clinical trials , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[17]  R. Maller,et al.  Survival Analysis with Long-Term Survivors , 1996 .

[18]  N. Chatterjee,et al.  A Bivariate Cure‐Mixture Approach for Modeling Familial Association in Diseases , 2001, Biometrics.

[19]  You-Gan Wang,et al.  An extension of the continual reassessment method using decision theory , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  B E Storer,et al.  Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. , 1989, Biometrics.

[21]  David R. Cox,et al.  Regression models and life tables (with discussion , 1972 .

[22]  S. Møller,et al.  An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Joseph Berkson,et al.  Survival Curve for Cancer Patients Following Treatment , 1952 .