Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials.

The 3 + 3 design is the most common choice among clinicians for phase I dose-escalation oncology trials. In recent reviews, more than 95% of phase I trials have been based on the 3 + 3 design. Given that it is intuitive and its implementation does not require a computer program, clinicians can conduct 3 + 3 dose escalations in practice with virtually no logistic cost, and trial protocols based on the 3 + 3 design pass institutional review board and biostatistics reviews quickly. However, the performance of the 3 + 3 design has rarely been compared with model-based designs in simulation studies with matched sample sizes. In the vast majority of statistical literature, the 3 + 3 design has been shown to be inferior in identifying true maximum-tolerated doses (MTDs), although the sample size required by the 3 + 3 design is often orders-of-magnitude smaller than model-based designs. In this article, through comparative simulation studies with matched sample sizes, we demonstrate that the 3 + 3 design has higher risks of exposing patients to toxic doses above the MTD than the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design, a newly developed adaptive method. In addition, compared with the mTPI design, the 3 + 3 design does not yield higher probabilities in identifying the correct MTD, even when the sample size is matched. Given that the mTPI design is equally transparent, costless to implement with free software, and more flexible in practical situations, we highly encourage its adoption in early dose-escalation studies whenever the 3 + 3 design is also considered. We provide free software to allow direct comparisons of the 3 + 3 design with other model-based designs in simulation studies with matched sample sizes.

[1]  Ying Kuen Cheung,et al.  Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method , 2011 .

[2]  Yuan Ji,et al.  A Bayesian adaptive design for multi-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I/II trials. , 2012, Contemporary clinical trials.

[3]  Gregory J Hather,et al.  Some Notable Properties of the Standard Oncology Phase I Design , 2008, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  J. Lee,et al.  Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

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

[7]  David Olmos,et al.  First-in-man clinical trial of the oral pan-AKT inhibitor MK-2206 in patients with advanced solid tumors. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[9]  Mourad Tighiouart,et al.  Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Yuan Ji,et al.  A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. , 2010, Clinical trials.

[11]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Another look at two phase I clinical trial designs. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Dirk Strumberg,et al.  Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the Novel Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  W J Shih,et al.  Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. , 2001, Biostatistics.

[14]  B E Storer,et al.  An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose–response setting , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  J. Longmate,et al.  Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical Phase I design. , 2011, Contemporary clinical trials.

[16]  Patrick Soon-Shiong,et al.  Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of ABI-007, a Cremophor-free, protein-stabilized, nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel. , 2002, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

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

[18]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Phase I study of bortezomib plus ICE (BICE) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma , 2011, British journal of haematology.

[19]  Michael Branson,et al.  Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

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

[21]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials , 2010 .