A robust two‐stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials

We propose a robust two-stage design to identify the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials evaluating both toxicity and efficacy outcomes. In the first stage of dose finding, we use the Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method to monitor the toxicity outcomes and adopt an isotonic regression method based on the efficacy outcomes to guide dose escalation. When the first stage ends, we use the Dirichlet-multinomial distribution to jointly model the toxicity and efficacy outcomes and pick the candidate doses based on a three-dimensional volume ratio. The selected candidate doses are then seamlessly advanced to the second stage for dose validation. Both toxicity and efficacy outcomes are continuously monitored so that any overly toxic and/or less efficacious dose can be dropped from the study as the trial continues. When the phase I/II trial ends, we select the optimal biological dose as the dose obtaining the minimal value of the volume ratio within the candidate set. An advantage of the proposed design is that it does not impose a monotonically increasing assumption on the shape of the dose-efficacy curve. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed design. The simulation results show that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics across different shapes of the underlying true dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy curves. The software to implement the proposed design is available upon request. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Antje Hoering,et al.  Early phase trial design for assessing several dose levels for toxicity and efficacy for targeted agents , 2013, Clinical trials.

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

[3]  Xuelin Huang,et al.  A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies , 2007, Biometrics.

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

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

[6]  Lesley Seymour,et al.  An Overview of the Optimal Planning, Design, and Conduct of Phase I Studies of New Therapeutics , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Dose‐Finding Designs for HIV Studies , 2001, Biometrics.

[8]  Robert M Elashoff,et al.  A Phase I Trial to Determine the Optimal Biological Dose of Celecoxib when Combined with Erlotinib in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

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

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

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

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

[13]  T. Turner,et al.  Locating a maximum using isotonic regression , 1997 .

[14]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method in Phase I Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[15]  Edward L Korn,et al.  Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

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

[17]  Antje Hoering,et al.  Seamless Phase I-II Trial Design for Assessing Toxicity and Efficacy for Targeted Agents , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[18]  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.

[19]  Edward L Korn,et al.  Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Ying Yuan,et al.  BAYESIAN PHASE I/II ADAPTIVELY RANDOMIZED ONCOLOGY TRIALS WITH COMBINED DRUGS. , 2011, The annals of applied statistics.

[22]  Joseph S Koopmeiners,et al.  Evaluating the performance of copula models in phase I-II clinical trials under model misspecification , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

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

[24]  Rodrigo Dienstmann,et al.  Toxicity as a biomarker of efficacy of molecular targeted therapies: focus on EGFR and VEGF inhibiting anticancer drugs. , 2011, The oncologist.

[25]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  P. Thall,et al.  Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[27]  M M Haglund,et al.  Phase I trial of O6-benzylguanine for patients undergoing surgery for malignant glioma. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.