Daniel Normolle1, Theodore Lawrence. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. monk@umich.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The standard design for phase I trials of combined chemotherapy and radiation, which enters either three or six patients per dose level, has little statistical basis and is subject to opening and closing because of delayed toxicities that disrupt patient accrual. We compared the operating characteristics of this standard design and the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) for dose-escalation trials of combination chemotherapy and radiation. METHODS: The operating characteristics were determined by Monte Carlo simulation of 60,000 phase I trials. RESULTS: Compared with the standard trial design, in studies with delayed toxicity (ie, where four or more patients are expected to enter onto the study during a single previously enrolled patient's observation for toxicity), TITE-CRM trials are significantly shorter when toxicity observation times are long, treat more patients at or above the maximum-tolerated dose, identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) more accurately, and provide phase II information, but do not expose patients to significant additional risk. Estimation precision and overdose control of TITE-CRM increase as the design assumptions more closely resemble the true state of nature, but are reduced if, for instance, the toxicity of treatment has been grossly underestimated. CONCLUSION: Compared with the standard design, if there is any prior knowledge concerning the toxicity profile of a treatment, TITE-CRM can leverage it to produce more accurate estimates of the MTD and does not expose patients to significant excess risk, but requires timely communication between clinical investigators, data managers, and study statisticians.
PURPOSE: The standard design for phase I trials of combined chemotherapy and radiation, which enters either three or six patients per dose level, has little statistical basis and is subject to opening and closing because of delayed toxicities that disrupt patient accrual. We compared the operating characteristics of this standard design and the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) for dose-escalation trials of combination chemotherapy and radiation. METHODS: The operating characteristics were determined by Monte Carlo simulation of 60,000 phase I trials. RESULTS: Compared with the standard trial design, in studies with delayed toxicity (ie, where four or more patients are expected to enter onto the study during a single previously enrolled patient's observation for toxicity), TITE-CRM trials are significantly shorter when toxicity observation times are long, treat more patients at or above the maximum-tolerated dose, identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) more accurately, and provide phase II information, but do not expose patients to significant additional risk. Estimation precision and overdose control of TITE-CRM increase as the design assumptions more closely resemble the true state of nature, but are reduced if, for instance, the toxicity of treatment has been grossly underestimated. CONCLUSION: Compared with the standard design, if there is any prior knowledge concerning the toxicity profile of a treatment, TITE-CRM can leverage it to produce more accurate estimates of the MTD and does not expose patients to significant excess risk, but requires timely communication between clinical investigators, data managers, and study statisticians.
Authors: Christina I Tsien; Doris Brown; Daniel Normolle; Matthew Schipper; Morand Piert; Larry Junck; Jason Heth; Diana Gomez-Hassan; Randall K Ten Haken; Thomas Chenevert; Yue Cao; Theodore Lawrence Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mary Feng; David E Smith; Daniel P Normolle; James A Knol; Charlie C Pan; Edgar Ben-Josef; Zheng Lu; Meihua R Feng; Jun Chen; William Ensminger; Theodore S Lawrence Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrea Bezjak; Rebecca Paulus; Laurie E Gaspar; Robert D Timmerman; William L Straube; William F Ryan; Yolanda I Garces; Anthony T Pu; Anurag K Singh; Gregory M Videtic; Ronald C McGarry; Puneeth Iyengar; Jason R Pantarotto; James J Urbanic; Alexander Y Sun; Megan E Daly; Inga S Grills; Paul Sperduto; Daniel P Normolle; Jeffrey D Bradley; Hak Choy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nathan VanderVeen; Christopher Paran; Jonathan Krasinkiewicz; Lili Zhao; Donna Palmer; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Philip Ng; Pedro R Lowenstein; Maria G Castro Journal: Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.032
Authors: Yaacov Richard Lawrence; Bhadrasain Vikram; James J Dignam; Arnab Chakravarti; Mitchell Machtay; Boris Freidlin; Naoko Takebe; Walter J Curran; Soren M Bentzen; Paul Okunieff; C Norman Coleman; Adam P Dicker Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Amye Tevaarwerk; George Wilding; Jens Eickhoff; Rick Chappell; Carolyn Sidor; Jamie Arnott; Howard Bailey; William Schelman; Glenn Liu Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Mohammad-Reza Nazem-Zadeh; Christopher H Chapman; Thomas Chenevert; Theodore S Lawrence; Randall K Ten Haken; Christina I Tsien; Yue Cao Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 3.609