BOIN‐ET: Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the main purposes of a phase I dose-finding trial in oncology is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent phase II and III trials. Many phase I dose-finding methods based solely on toxicity considerations have been proposed under the assumption that both toxicity and efficacy monotonically increase with the dose level. Such an assumption may not be necessarily the case, however, when evaluating the OD for molecular targeted, cytostatic, and biological agents, as well as immune-oncology therapy. To address this issue, we extend the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design, which is nonparametric and thus does not require the assumption used in model-based designs, in order to identify an OD based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. The new design is named "BOIN-ET." A simulation study is presented that includes a comparison of this proposed method to the model-based approaches in terms of both efficacy and toxicity responses. The simulation shows that BOIN-ET has advantages in both the percentages of correct ODs selected and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings.

[1]  Ying Yuan,et al.  A Bayesian dose finding design for clinical trials combining a cytotoxic agent with a molecularly targeted agent , 2015 .

[2]  Fangrong Yan,et al.  Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

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

[4]  B. Druker,et al.  Perspectives on the development of a molecularly targeted agent. , 2002, Cancer cell.

[5]  V. Fedorov,et al.  Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity response , 2006 .

[6]  Akihiro Hirakawa,et al.  An adaptive dose‐finding approach for correlated bivariate binary and continuous outcomes in phase I oncology trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Patient‐Specific Dose Finding Based on Bivariate Outcomes and Covariates , 2008, Biometrics.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Effective sample size for computing prior hyperparameters in Bayesian phase I–II dose-finding , 2014, Clinical trials.

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

[12]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials , 2015, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics).

[13]  Ying Yuan,et al.  A Bayesian dose finding design for oncology clinical trials of combinational biological agents , 2014, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics.

[14]  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.

[15]  Silvia Calderazzo Ying Yuan, Hoang Q. Nguyen, and Peter F. Thall. BAYESIAN DESIGNS FOR PHASE I–II CLINICAL TRIALS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series. 310 pages, ISBN 9781498709552 , 2017 .

[16]  Chikuma Hamada,et al.  Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method for Bivariate Binary Efficacy and Toxicity Outcomes in Phase I Oncology Trials , 2014, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.