TSNP: A two‐stage nonparametric phase I/II clinical trial design for immunotherapy

We develop a transparent and efficient two-stage nonparametric (TSNP) phase I/II clinical trial design to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) of immunotherapy. We propose a nonparametric approach to derive the closed-form estimates of the joint toxicity-efficacy response probabilities under the monotonic increasing constraint for the toxicity outcomes. These estimates are then used to measure the immunotherapy's toxicity-efficacy profiles at each dose and guide the dose finding. The first stage of the design aims to explore the toxicity profile. The second stage aims to find the OBD, which can achieve the optimal therapeutic effect by considering both the toxicity and efficacy outcomes through a utility function. The closed-form estimates and concise dose-finding algorithm make the TSNP design appealing in practice. The simulation results show that the TSNP design yields superior operating characteristics than the existing Bayesian parametric designs. User-friendly computational software is freely available to facilitate the application of the proposed design to real trials. We provide comprehensive illustrations and examples about implementing the proposed design with associated software.

[1]  Suyu Liu,et al.  A robust Bayesian dose-finding design for phase I/II clinical trials. , 2016, Biostatistics.

[2]  Ying Yuan,et al.  BAYESIAN DATA AUGMENTATION DOSE FINDING WITH CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD AND DELAYED TOXICITY. , 2013, The annals of applied statistics.

[3]  Jennifer Couzin-Frankel,et al.  Breakthrough of the year 2013. Cancer immunotherapy. , 2013, Science.

[4]  G. Weiner,et al.  Cancer immunotherapy and breaking immune tolerance: new approaches to an old challenge. , 2015, Cancer research.

[5]  Ying Yuan,et al.  A utility‐based Bayesian optimal interval (U‐BOIN) phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose for targeted and immune therapies , 2019, Statistics in medicine.

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

[7]  Ross A Soo,et al.  De-novo and acquired resistance to immune checkpoint targeting. , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

[8]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Robust EM Continual Reassessment Method in Oncology Dose Finding , 2011, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[9]  Ying Yuan,et al.  A Bayesian Phase I/II Trial Design for Immunotherapy , 2018, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[10]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Using Data Augmentation to Facilitate Conduct of Phase I–II Clinical Trials With Delayed Outcomes , 2014, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

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

[12]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian Phase I/II Biomarker-Based Dose Finding for Precision Medicine With Molecularly Targeted Agents , 2017, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[13]  Hoang Q. Nguyen,et al.  Optimizing Sedative Dose in Preterm Infants Undergoing Treatment for Respiratory Distress Syndrome , 2014, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

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

[15]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Utility‐Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials , 2010, Biometrics.

[16]  J. Dale Global cross-ratio models for bivariate, discrete, ordered responses. , 1986, Biometrics.

[17]  Nancy Flournoy,et al.  Cumulative cohort design for dose-finding , 2007 .

[18]  Drew M Pardoll,et al.  Cancer immunotherapy comes of age. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents , 2014, Clinical trials.

[20]  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.

[21]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Using Joint Utilities of the Times to Response and Toxicity to Adaptively Optimize Schedule–Dose Regimes , 2013, Biometrics.

[22]  Wei Zhang,et al.  An adaptive dose‐finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Thomas A Murray,et al.  Robust Treatment Comparison Based on Utilities of Semi-Competing Risks in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer , 2017, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[24]  Yong Zang,et al.  A robust two‐stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Nancy Flournoy,et al.  Comparison of Isotonic Designs for Dose-Finding , 2009, Statistics in biopharmaceutical research.

[26]  Jedd D. Wolchok,et al.  The future of cancer treatment: immunomodulation, CARs and combination immunotherapy , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.