Continual Reassessment Method for a First-in-Human Trial: From Design to Trial Implementation

We present a case study of a Phase 1 oncology dose-escalation trial utilizing modified Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). Learning about the dose–toxicity relationship and choosing the correct Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) to take forward into Phase II is one of the most challenging research questions in Phase 1 oncology trials. CRM is a Bayesian adaptive design targeting a specific Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT) rate, e.g., 25 %. Similar to the traditional 3 + 3 designs used in oncology Phase 1 trials, learning about drug’s toxicity profile with CRM occurs in real time. However, since CRM algorithm incorporates dose–toxicity modeling in the learning process, its ability to identify the correct Maximum Tolerated Dose is substantially improved, compared to the traditional 3 + 3 design. Such design also results in more patients being allocated to tolerable doses with therapeutic potential than would be the case in a more traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation trial. This trial was designed and executed using a custom-developed and validated software package which helped to alleviate substantial increase in overhead cost typically associated with planning and implementation of such designs. We present the whole “story” of the trial from beginning to end, including selection of study design, assessment of its operating characteristics via simulations, execution, study results, and lessons learned.

[1]  S Zacks,et al.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  L. Haines,et al.  Bayesian Optimal Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials , 2003, Biometrics.

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

[4]  Michael Branson,et al.  Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Sequential continual reassessment method for two‐dimensional dose finding , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[8]  Ying Kuen Cheung,et al.  Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method , 2011 .

[9]  John O'Quigley,et al.  Continual Reassessment and Related Dose-Finding Designs. , 2010, Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

[10]  J. Lee,et al.  Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  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.

[12]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Janet Woodcock,et al.  The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. , 2008, Annual review of medicine.

[14]  J Whitehead,et al.  Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  William F Rosenberger,et al.  Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Nancy Flournoy,et al.  Group up-and-down designs for dose-finding , 2006 .

[17]  G. Shapiro,et al.  Abstract A167: First-in-patient study of PF-05212384, a small molecule intravenous dual inhibitor of PI3K and mTOR in patients with advanced cancer: Update on safety, efficacy, and pharmacology. , 2011 .