A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials.

BACKGROUND Building on earlier work, the toxicity probability interval (TPI) method, we present a modified TPI (mTPI) design that is calibration-free for phase I trials. PURPOSE Our goal is to improve the trial conduct and provide more effective designs while maintaining the simplicity of the original TPI design. METHODS Like the TPI method, the mTPI consists of a practical dose-finding scheme guided by the posterior inference for a simple Bayesian model. However, the new method proposes improved dose-finding decision rules based on a new statistic, the unit probability mass (UPM). For a given interval and a probability distribution, the UPM is defined as the ratio of the probability mass of the interval to the length of the interval. RESULTS The improvement through the use of the UPM for dose finding is threefold: (1) the mTPI method appears to be safer than the TPI method in that it puts fewer patients on toxic doses; (2) the mTPI method eliminates the need for calibrating two key parameters, which is required in the TPI method and is a known difficult issue; and (3) the mTPI method corresponds to the Bayes rule under a decision theoretic framework and possesses additional desirable large- and small-sample properties. LIMITATION The proposed method is applicable to dose-finding trials with a binary toxicity endpoint. CONCLUSION The new method mTPI is essentially calibration free and exhibits improved performance over the TPI method. These features make the mTPI a desirable choice for the design of practical trials.

[1]  T. Louis,et al.  Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis. , 1997 .

[2]  Shing M. Lee,et al.  Model calibration in the continual reassessment method , 2009, Clinical trials.

[3]  R. Chappell,et al.  The Continual Reassessment Method for Multiple Toxicity Grades: A Bayesian Quasi‐Likelihood Approach , 2007, Biometrics.

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

[5]  Alexia Iasonos,et al.  A Comprehensive Comparison of the Continual Reassessment Method to the Standard 3 + 3 Dose Escalation Scheme in Phase I Dose-Finding Studies , 2008, Clinical trials.

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

[7]  J. O'Quigley,et al.  Sensitivity of dose-finding studies to observation errors. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.

[8]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Dose-finding in phase I clinical trials based on toxicity probability intervals , 2007, Clinical trials.

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

[10]  John O'Quigley,et al.  Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification , 1996 .

[11]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[12]  Nancy Flournoy,et al.  Dose Finding Using the Biased Coin Up‐and‐Down Design and Isotonic Regression , 2002, Biometrics.

[13]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials , 1998, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

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

[15]  P F Thall,et al.  Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: Methods based on toxicity , 2003, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[16]  Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer,et al.  The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial , 2006, Clinical trials.

[17]  P. Sen,et al.  Large sample methods in statistics , 1993 .

[18]  A. Rukhin Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis , 1997 .

[19]  Yisheng Li,et al.  Bayesian dose finding in phase I clinical trials based on a new statistical framework , 2007 .