PURPOSE: To shorten the study conduct timeline of pediatric phase I oncology trials by employing a novel trial design. METHODS: A comparison of the traditional 3 + 3 patients per cohort, phase I trial design with a novel, rolling six design was performed by using discrete event simulation. The rolling six design allows for accrual of two to six patients concurrently onto a dose level based on the number of patients currently enrolled and evaluable, the number experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the number still at risk of developing a DLT. Clinical trial simulations (n = 1,000) were based on historical data and were performed using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Study timelines and patient numbers were determined for each design, and safety was assessed as a function of the number of DLTs observed. RESULTS: In twelve completed historical studies, the median time to study completion was 452 days (range, 220 to 606 days); number of evaluable participants enrolled was 22 (range, 11 to 33), and DLTs occurring per study was three (range, 0 to 5). In 1,000 study simulations, in which the average time to new patient accrual was 10 days, the average +/- standard deviation (SD) time to study completion was 294 +/- 75 days for the rolling six design versus 350 +/- 84 days for the 3 + 3 design, whereas the number of DLTs per study was the same (average +/- SD, 3.3 +/- 1.1 v 3.2 +/- 1.1 for the rolling six and 3 + 3 designs, respectively). CONCLUSION: The rolling six design may significantly decrease the duration of pediatric phase I studies without increasing the risk of toxicity. The design will be tested prospectively in upcoming Children's Oncology Group phase I trials.
PURPOSE: To shorten the study conduct timeline of pediatric phase I oncology trials by employing a novel trial design. METHODS: A comparison of the traditional 3 + 3 patients per cohort, phase I trial design with a novel, rolling six design was performed by using discrete event simulation. The rolling six design allows for accrual of two to six patients concurrently onto a dose level based on the number of patients currently enrolled and evaluable, the number experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the number still at risk of developing a DLT. Clinical trial simulations (n = 1,000) were based on historical data and were performed using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Study timelines and patient numbers were determined for each design, and safety was assessed as a function of the number of DLTs observed. RESULTS: In twelve completed historical studies, the median time to study completion was 452 days (range, 220 to 606 days); number of evaluable participants enrolled was 22 (range, 11 to 33), and DLTs occurring per study was three (range, 0 to 5). In 1,000 study simulations, in which the average time to new patient accrual was 10 days, the average +/- standard deviation (SD) time to study completion was 294 +/- 75 days for the rolling six design versus 350 +/- 84 days for the 3 + 3 design, whereas the number of DLTs per study was the same (average +/- SD, 3.3 +/- 1.1 v 3.2 +/- 1.1 for the rolling six and 3 + 3 designs, respectively). CONCLUSION: The rolling six design may significantly decrease the duration of pediatric phase I studies without increasing the risk of toxicity. The design will be tested prospectively in upcoming Children's Oncology Group phase I trials.
Authors: James I Geller; Elizabeth Fox; Brian K Turpin; Stuart L Goldstein; Xiaowei Liu; Charles G Minard; Rachel A Kudgus; Joel M Reid; Stacey L Berg; Brenda J Weigel Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Todd M Cooper; Edward Allan Racela Sison; Sharyn D Baker; Lie Li; Amina Ahmed; Tanya Trippett; Lia Gore; Margaret E Macy; Aru Narendran; Keith August; Michael J Absalon; Jessica Boklan; Jessica Pollard; Daniel Magoon; Patrick A Brown Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Lindsey M Hoffman; Maryam Fouladi; James Olson; Vinay M Daryani; Clinton F Stewart; Cynthia Wetmore; Mehmet Kocak; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Lars Wagner; Sridharan Gururangan; Roger J Packer; Susan M Blaney; Amar Gajjar; Larry E Kun; James M Boyett; Richard J Gilbertson Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Laura A Levit; Peter C Adamson; Suanna Bruinooge; Howard A Burris; Michael A Carducci; Adam P Dicker; Mithat Gönen; Stephen M Keefe; Michael A Postow; Michael A Thompson; David M Waterhouse; Susan L Weiner; Lynn M Schuchter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James I Geller; John P Perentesis; Xiaowei Liu; Charles G Minard; Rachel A Kudgus; Joel M Reid; Elizabeth Fox; Susan M Blaney; Brenda J Weigel Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Lucas Moreno; Andrew D J Pearson; Xavier Paoletti; Irene Jimenez; Birgit Geoerger; Pamela R Kearns; C Michel Zwaan; Francois Doz; Andre Baruchel; Josef Vormoor; Michela Casanova; Stefan M Pfister; Bruce Morland; Gilles Vassal Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Mignon L Loh; Sarah K Tasian; Karen R Rabin; Patrick Brown; Daniel Magoon; Joel M Reid; Xuejun Chen; Charlotte H Ahern; Brenda J Weigel; Susan M Blaney Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 3.167