A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, Rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric Phase I oncology trials.

The traditional method (TM), also known as the 3+3 up-and-down design, and the continual reassessment method (CRM) are commonly used in Phase I oncology trials to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The rolling-6 is a relative newcomer which was developed to shorten trial duration by minimizing the period of time during which the trial is closed to accrual for toxicity assessment. In this manuscript we have compared the performance of these three approaches via simulations not only with respect to the usual parameters such as overall toxicity, sample size and percentage of patients treated at doses above the MTD but also in terms of trial duration and the dose chosen as the MTD. Our results indicate that the toxicity rates are comparable across the three designs, but the TM and the rolling-6 tend to treat a higher percentage of patients at doses below the MTD. With respect to trial duration, rolling-6 leads to shorter trials compared to the TM but not compared to the CRM. Additionally, the doses identified as the MTD by the TM and the rolling-6 differ in a large percentage of trials. Our results also indicate that the body surface area-based dosing used in pediatric trials can make a difference in dose escalation/de-escalation patterns in the CRM compared to the cases where such variations are not taken into account in the calculations, even leading to different MTDs in some cases.

[1]  G. Reaman,et al.  Phase I trial of oral fenretinide in children with high-risk solid tumors: a report from the Children's Oncology Group (CCG 09709). , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Ethan Reiner,et al.  A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method , 1998 .

[3]  I. Pollack,et al.  Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib administered twice daily to pediatric patients with advanced central nervous system tumors using a modified continuous reassessment method: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  T. MacDonald,et al.  Phase I Trial of Single-Dose Temozolomide and Continuous Administration of O6-Benzylguanine in Children with Brain Tumors: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Report , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  John O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment designs with early termination. , 2002, Biostatistics.

[6]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials , 1998, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

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

[8]  R. Arceci,et al.  Phase I trial and pharmacokinetic study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib in children with refractory solid tumors or neurofibromatosis type I and plexiform neurofibromas. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  P. Adamson,et al.  Pediatric phase I trials in oncology: an analysis of study conduct efficiency. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  B. Carlin,et al.  Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[13]  I. Pollack,et al.  Phase I trial of imatinib in children with newly diagnosed brainstem and recurrent malignant gliomas: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium report. , 2007, Neuro-oncology.

[14]  I. Pollack,et al.  Phase I Trial of VNP40101M (Cloretazine) in Children with Recurrent Brain Tumors: A Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Study , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  A. Onar,et al.  An Operational Perspective of Challenging Statistical Dogma While Establishing a Modern, Secure Distributed Data Management and Imaging Transport System: The Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Phase I Experience , 2009, Clinical and translational science.

[16]  T. MacDonald,et al.  Phase I clinical trial of cilengitide in children with refractory brain tumors: Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Study PBTC-012. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Jeffrey S Barrett,et al.  Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  3 + 3 ≠ (Rolling) 6 , 2008 .

[19]  Mehmet Kocak,et al.  Continual Reassessment Method vs. Traditional Empirically Based Design: Modifications Motivated by Phase I Trials in Pediatric Oncology by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.