PURPOSE: Most current dose-seeking phase 1 trials include an expanded cohort at phase-2-recommended dose (P2RD) to better characterize the drug safety or to obtain a better estimate of secondary endpoints. Nevertheless, the sample size of this expanded cohort has generally not been justified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 330 phase 1 trials (1998-2008). We estimated the rate of patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at P2RD. Next, we estimated the probability of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLT in different fictive cohorts (from 8 to 22 patients). RESULTS: In the literature, the rate of patients experiencing DLT at P2RD was 367/2433, or 15.0%. We drew a table estimating the probability of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLTs in the different fictive cohorts. For example, in a cohort of 16 patients, the probabilities of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLTs are about 92.6%, 91.3 and 91.1% respectively. CONCLUSION: This simple tool could provide a justification for the sample size of an expanded cohort when DLT remains the metric for dose-seeking.
PURPOSE: Most current dose-seeking phase 1 trials include an expanded cohort at phase-2-recommended dose (P2RD) to better characterize the drug safety or to obtain a better estimate of secondary endpoints. Nevertheless, the sample size of this expanded cohort has generally not been justified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 330 phase 1 trials (1998-2008). We estimated the rate of patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at P2RD. Next, we estimated the probability of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLT in different fictive cohorts (from 8 to 22 patients). RESULTS: In the literature, the rate of patients experiencing DLT at P2RD was 367/2433, or 15.0%. We drew a table estimating the probability of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLTs in the different fictive cohorts. For example, in a cohort of 16 patients, the probabilities of observing 1, 2 or 3 DLTs are about 92.6%, 91.3 and 91.1% respectively. CONCLUSION: This simple tool could provide a justification for the sample size of an expanded cohort when DLT remains the metric for dose-seeking.
Authors: Christopher M Booth; A Hilary Calvert; Giuseppe Giaccone; Marinus W Lobbezoo; Lesley K Seymour; Elizabeth A Eisenhauer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nicolas Penel; Nicolas Isambert; Pierre Leblond; Charles Ferte; Alain Duhamel; Jacques Bonneterre Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Nilofer S Azad; Edwin M Posadas; Virginia E Kwitkowski; Seth M Steinberg; Lokesh Jain; Christina M Annunziata; Lori Minasian; Gisele Sarosy; Herbert L Kotz; Ahalya Premkumar; Liang Cao; Deborah McNally; Catherine Chow; Helen X Chen; John J Wright; William D Figg; Elise C Kohn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Diogo D G Bugano; Kenneth Hess; Denis L F Jardim; Alona Zer; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Lillian L Siu; Albiruni R A Razak; David S Hong Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A Adenis; I Ray-Coquard; A Italiano; E Chauzit; B Bui-Nguyen; J-Y Blay; E Tresch-Bruneel; C Fournier; S Clisant; E Y Amela; P A Cassier; M Molimard; N Penel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 7.640