A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials.

We propose a design strategy for single-arm clinical trials in which the goals are to find a dose of an experimental treatment satisfying both safety and efficacy requirements, treat a sufficiently large number of patients to estimate the rates of these events at the selected dose with a given reliability, and stop the trial early if it is likely that no dose is both safe and efficacious. Patient outcome is characterized by a trinary ordinal variable accounting for both efficacy and toxicity. Like Thall, Simon, and Estey (1995, Statistics in Medicine 14, 357-379), we use Bayesian criteria to generate decision rules while relying on frequentist criteria obtained via simulation to determine a design parameterization with good operating characteristics. The strategy is illustrated by application to a bone marrow transplantation trial for hematologic malignancies and a trial of a biologic agent for malignant melanoma.

[1]  M R Conaway,et al.  Bivariate sequential designs for phase II trials. , 1995, Biometrics.

[2]  M R Conaway,et al.  Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity. , 1996, Biometrics.

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

[4]  D J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian with group sequential methods for monitoring clinical trials. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  J. Bryant,et al.  Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. , 1995, Biometrics.

[6]  P. Thall,et al.  Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  P F Thall,et al.  New statistical strategy for monitoring safety and efficacy in single-arm clinical trials. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Pierre L'Ecuyer,et al.  Implementing a random number package with splitting facilities , 1991, TOMS.

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

[10]  D A Berry.  Decision analysis and Bayesian methods in clinical trials. , 1995, Cancer treatment and research.

[11]  Chih-Hsiang Ho.  Some Frequentist Properties of a Bayesian Method in Clinical Trials , 1991 .

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

[13]  L V Rubinstein,et al.  A comparison of two phase I trial designs. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

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

[15]  Irene A. Stegun,et al.  Handbook of Mathematical Functions. , 1966 .

[16]  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.

[17]  T A Gooley,et al.  Simulation as a design tool for phase I/II clinical trials: an example from bone marrow transplantation. , 1994, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  S Greenland,et al.  Alternative models for ordinal logistic regression. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  D A Berry,et al.  A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

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