Isotonic designs for phase I cancer clinical trials with multiple risk groups

Background In phase I cancer clinical trials, adjustment for patient differences in toxicity susceptibility can be carried out with stratification into risk groups. Separate trials conducted for each risk group can lead to conflicting decisions, in which higher doses are recommended for higher risk groups. Designs which covariate adjust often require assumptions that clinicians may be uncomfortable with. Methods We extend up-and-down designs, isotonic designs and the continual reassessment method (CRM) to multiple risk groups with two-way isotonic regression. The only assumption about the groups is that they can be ordered according to their toxicity risk. The first two extensions, in particular, are nonparametric and easy for clinicians to understand. Results Simulations were based on an ongoing helical tomotherapy trial. Seven different toxicity scenarios were considered. The proposed methods compared favorably to a covariate adjusted CRM. The extended up-and-down designs inherited the conservativeness from the original designs. Conclusion Our experience demonstrates that the escalation rules of multiple risk groups can be linked, without a parametric assumption about the group toxicity curve, to borrow strength and to ensure nonconflicting dosage recommendations.

[1]  John O'Quigley,et al.  Continual Reassessment Method for Ordered Groups , 2003, Biometrics.

[2]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[5]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Dose-response models with covariates. , 1995, Biometrics.

[6]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. , 1996, Biometrics.

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

[8]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Two-sample continual reassessment method. , 1999, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

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

[10]  R Mackie,et al.  A new approach to dose escalation in non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  S Chevret,et al.  The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  S. Chevret,et al.  Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: a review and results of a Monte Carlo study. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  F. T. Wright,et al.  Order restricted statistical inference , 1988 .

[14]  A Rogatko,et al.  Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase I clinical trial , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

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

[16]  R. Schilsky,et al.  Individualized dosing of amonafide based on a pharmacodynamic model incorporating acetylator phenotype and gender. , 1996, Pharmacogenetics.

[17]  J G Ibrahim,et al.  Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  André Rogatko,et al.  Individualized patient dosing in phase I clinical trials: the role of escalation with overdose control in PNU-214936. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  D H Leung,et al.  Isotonic designs for phase I trials. , 2001, Controlled clinical trials.