Using Joint Utilities of the Times to Response and Toxicity to Adaptively Optimize Schedule–Dose Regimes

A Bayesian two-stage phase I-II design is proposed for optimizing administration schedule and dose of an experimental agent based on the times to response and toxicity in the case where schedules are non-nested and qualitatively different. Sequentially adaptive decisions are based on the joint utility of the two event times. A utility function is constructed by partitioning the two-dimensional positive real quadrant of possible event time pairs into rectangles, eliciting a numerical utility for each rectangle, and fitting a smooth parametric function to the elicited values. We assume that each event time follows a gamma distribution with shape and scale parameters both modeled as functions of schedule and dose. A copula is assumed to obtain a bivariate distribution. To ensure an ethical trial, adaptive safety and efficacy acceptability conditions are imposed on the (schedule, dose) regimes. In stage 1 of the design, patients are randomized fairly among schedules and, within each schedule, a dose is chosen using a hybrid algorithm that either maximizes posterior mean utility or randomizes among acceptable doses. In stage 2, fair randomization among schedules is replaced by the hybrid algorithm. A modified version of this algorithm is used for nested schedules. Extensions of the model and utility function to accommodate death or discontinuation of follow up are described. The method is illustrated by an autologous stem cell transplantation trial in multiple myeloma, including a simulation study.

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

[2]  Say Beng Tan,et al.  Dose Finding Studies , 2009 .

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

[4]  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.

[5]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Determining a Maximum‐Tolerated Schedule of a Cytotoxic Agent , 2005, Biometrics.

[6]  R. Nelsen An Introduction to Copulas , 1998 .

[7]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks. , 2008, Biostatistics.

[8]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Adaptive Randomization to Improve Utility-Based Dose-Finding with Bivariate Ordinal Outcomes , 2012, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Bayesian Models and Decision Algorithms for Complex Early Phase Clinical Trials. , 2010, Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

[10]  Thomas M Braun,et al.  Generalizing the TITE‐CRM to adapt for early‐ and late‐onset toxicities , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Yosef Rinott,et al.  The Treatment Versus Experimentation Dilemma in Dose-finding Studies , 2011 .

[12]  Hoang Q. Nguyen,et al.  Optimizing the Concentration and Bolus of a Drug Delivered by Continuous Infusion , 2011, Biometrics.

[13]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes , 2009 .

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

[15]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Dose--schedule finding in phase I/II clinical trials using a Bayesian isotonic transformation. , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

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

[17]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent , 2007, Clinical trials.

[18]  P F Thall,et al.  A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. , 1998, Biometrics.