Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology.

BACKGROUND Many cancer patients in phase I clinical trials are treated at doses of chemotherapeutic agents that are below the biologically active level, thus reducing their chances for therapeutic benefit. Current phase I trials often take a long time to complete and provide little information about interpatient variability or cumulative toxicity. PURPOSE Our objective was to develop alternative designs for phase I trials so that fewer patients are treated at subtherapeutic dose levels, trials are of reduced duration, and important information (i.e., cumulative toxicity and maximum tolerated dose) needed to plan phase II trials is obtained. METHODS We fit a stochastic model to data from 20 phase I trials involving the study of nine different drugs. We then simulated new data from the model with the parameters estimated from the actual trials and evaluated the performance of alternative phase I designs on this simulated data. Four designs were evaluated. Design 1 was a conventional design (similar to the commonly used modified Fibonacci method) using cohorts of three to six patients, with 40% dose-step increments and no intrapatient dose escalation. Designs 2 through 4 included only one patient per cohort until one patient experienced dose-limiting toxic effects or two patients experienced grade 2 toxic effects (during their first course of treatment for designs 2 and 3 or during any course of treatment for design 4). Designs 3 and 4 used 100% dose steps during this initial accelerated phase. After the initial accelerated phase, designs 2 through 4 resorted to standard cohorts of three to six patients, with 40% dose-step increments. Designs 2 through 4 used intrapatient dose escalation if the worst toxicity is grade 0-1 in the previous course for that patient. RESULTS Only three of the actual trials demonstrated cumulative toxic effects of the chemotherapeutic agents in patients. The average number of patients required for a phase I trial was reduced from 39.9 for design 1 to 24.4, 20.7, and 21.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients who would be expected to have grade 0-1 toxicity as their worst toxicity over three cycles of treatment is 23.3 for design 1, but only 7.9, 3.9, and 4.8 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients with grade 3 toxicity as their worst toxicity increases from 5.5 for design 1 to 6.2, 6.8, and 6.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients with grade 4 toxicity as their worst toxicity increases from 1.9 for design 1 to 3.0, 4.3, and 3.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION Accelerated titration (i.e., rapid intrapatient drug dose escalation) designs appear to effectively reduce the number of patients who are under-treated, speed the completion of phase I trials, and provide a substantial increase in the information obtained.

[1]  B. Carlin,et al.  Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[4]  S. Møller,et al.  An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  M. Ratain,et al.  Physician-determined patient risk of toxic effects: impact on enrollment and decision making in phase I cancer trials. , 1994, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  M J Ratain,et al.  Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  M J Ratain,et al.  Model-guided determination of maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials: evidence for increased precision. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  L B Sheiner,et al.  A simulation study comparing designs for dose ranging. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[11]  L. Sheiner,et al.  Study designs for dose‐ranging , 1989, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[12]  A. Gould,et al.  The analysis of titration studies in phase III clinical trials. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  C. Chuang The analysis of a titration study. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  R. Wittes,et al.  Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. , 1986, Cancer treatment reports.

[15]  B. Chabner,et al.  Potential roles for preclinical pharmacology in phase I clinical trials. , 1986, Cancer treatment reports.

[16]  T. Chou,et al.  Generalized equations for the analysis of inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten and higher-order kinetic systems with two or more mutually exclusive and nonexclusive inhibitors. , 2005, European journal of biochemistry.

[17]  S. Zacks,et al.  Sequential Search of an Optimal Dosage, I , 1973 .

[18]  L. Goodman,et al.  THE PHARMACOLOGICAL BASIS OF THERAPEUTICS , 1966 .