Defining dose-limiting toxicity for phase 1 trials of molecularly targeted agents: results of a DLT-TARGETT international survey.

INTRODUCTION It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents. METHODS A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay. RESULTS Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied. CONCLUSION The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper.

[1]  Thomas Filleron,et al.  Protocol of the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project: formal consensus method for the development of guidelines for standardised time-to-event endpoints' definitions in cancer clinical trials. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[2]  Xavier Paoletti,et al.  Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities? , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  G. Giaccone,et al.  Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[4]  D. Bodurka,et al.  A Phase I Trial of Liposomal Doxorubicin, Bevacizumab, and Temsirolimus in Patients with Advanced Gynecologic and Breast Malignancies , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  J. O'Quigley,et al.  Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  K. Flaherty,et al.  Modifying phase I methodology to facilitate enrolment of molecularly selected patients. , 2013, European Journal of Cancer.

[7]  Xavier Paoletti,et al.  Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: a review of the literature. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[8]  R. Labianca,et al.  Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  J. Blay,et al.  Adherence to imatinib therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. , 2014, Cancer treatment reviews.

[10]  Mats Lambe,et al.  Adherence and discontinuation of adjuvant hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients: a population-based study , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  J. Verweij,et al.  Phase I studies of drug combinations. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  L. Trani,et al.  Defining the risk of toxicity in phase I oncology trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: a single centre experience. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[14]  I. Tannock,et al.  Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  D A Asch,et al.  Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.