BACKGROUND: Although aggressive dose escalation strategies were designed to improve the risk-benefit profile of phase 1 oncology trials, they have not been adequately studied. The prevalence of several novel trial designs and their association with a variety of clinical endpoints was evaluated. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed to identify phase 1 oncology studies of cytotoxic agents published from 2002 through 2004. RESULTS: Of 955 phase 1 oncology articles initially identified, 149 studies, comprising 4532 patients, were analyzed. Only 34% of studies utilized aggressive dose escalation schemes, 22% permitted intrapatient dose escalation, and only 28% enrolled fewer than 3 patients to any dose level. Studies that allowed intrapatient dose escalation or used fewer than 3 patients per dose were not associated with different rates of response or toxicity, nor did they increase the number of patients who received the recommended phase 2 dose. However, aggressive dose escalations were associated with increased rates of both hematologic (17% vs 10%) and nonhematologic (17% vs 13%) toxicity with similar response rates. Only studies that used conservative dose escalation designs and those that studied U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents required fewer patients to complete a trial. Trials of FDA-approved agents were also associated with higher response rates than trials of non-FDA-approved agents (10% vs 2%), without an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Several novel aggressive design strategies intended to improve the risk-benefit profile of phase 1 oncology trials are not associated with improved clinical outcome, and may be harmful in certain instances.
BACKGROUND: Although aggressive dose escalation strategies were designed to improve the risk-benefit profile of phase 1 oncology trials, they have not been adequately studied. The prevalence of several novel trial designs and their association with a variety of clinical endpoints was evaluated. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed to identify phase 1 oncology studies of cytotoxic agents published from 2002 through 2004. RESULTS: Of 955 phase 1 oncology articles initially identified, 149 studies, comprising 4532 patients, were analyzed. Only 34% of studies utilized aggressive dose escalation schemes, 22% permitted intrapatient dose escalation, and only 28% enrolled fewer than 3 patients to any dose level. Studies that allowed intrapatient dose escalation or used fewer than 3 patients per dose were not associated with different rates of response or toxicity, nor did they increase the number of patients who received the recommended phase 2 dose. However, aggressive dose escalations were associated with increased rates of both hematologic (17% vs 10%) and nonhematologic (17% vs 13%) toxicity with similar response rates. Only studies that used conservative dose escalation designs and those that studied U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents required fewer patients to complete a trial. Trials of FDA-approved agents were also associated with higher response rates than trials of non-FDA-approved agents (10% vs 2%), without an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Several novel aggressive design strategies intended to improve the risk-benefit profile of phase 1 oncology trials are not associated with improved clinical outcome, and may be harmful in certain instances.
Authors: Nicolas Penel; Alain Duhamel; Antoine Adenis; Patrick Devos; Nicolas Isambert; Stéphanie Clisant; Jacques Bonneterre Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Rajul K Jain; J Jack Lee; David Hong; Maurie Markman; Jing Gong; Aung Naing; Jennifer Wheler; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Dai Chihara; Ruitao Lin; Christopher R Flowers; Shanda R Finnigan; Lisa M Cordes; Yoko Fukuda; Erich P Huang; Larry V Rubinstein; Loretta J Nastoupil; S Percy Ivy; James H Doroshow; Naoko Takebe Journal: Lancet Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Elisabeth I Heath; Patricia M LoRusso; S Percy Ivy; Larry Rubinstein; Michaele C Christian; Lance K Heilbrun Journal: J Biopharm Stat Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.051
Authors: Shivaani Kummar; Larry Rubinstein; Robert Kinders; Ralph E Parchment; Martin E Gutierrez; Anthony J Murgo; Jay Ji; Barbara Mroczkowski; Oxana K Pickeral; Mel Simpson; Melinda Hollingshead; Sherry X Yang; Lee Helman; Robert Wiltrout; Jerry Collins; Joseph E Tomaszewski; James H Doroshow Journal: Cancer J Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: S Postel-Vinay; H-T Arkenau; D Olmos; J Ang; J Barriuso; S Ashley; U Banerji; J De-Bono; I Judson; S Kaye Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 7.640