Literature DB >> 21652689

Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations.

Nolan A Wages1, Mark R Conaway, John O'Quigley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most of the current designs used for Phase I dose finding trials in oncology will either involve only a single cytotoxic agent or will impose some implicit ordering among the doses. The goal of the studies is to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A key working assumption of these methods is the monotonicity of the dose-toxicity curve.
PURPOSE: Here we consider situations in which the monotonicity assumption may fail. These studies are becoming increasingly common in practice, most notably, in phase I trials that involve combinations of agents. Our focus is on studies where there exist pairs of treatment combinations for which the ordering of the probabilities of a dose-limiting toxicity cannot be known a priori.
METHODS: We describe a new dose-finding design which can be used for multiple-drug trials and can be applied to this kind of problem. Our methods proceed by laying out all possible orderings of toxicity probabilities that are consistent with the known orderings among treatment combinations and allowing the continual reassessment method (CRM) to provide efficient estimates of the MTD within these orders. The design can be seen to simplify to the CRM when the full ordering is known.
RESULTS: We study the properties of the design via simulations that provide comparisons to the Bayesian approach to partial orders (POCRM) of Wages, Conaway, and O'Quigley. The POCRM was shown to perform well when compared to other suggested methods for partial orders. Therefore, we comapre our approach to it in order to assess the performance of the new design. LIMITATIONS: A limitation concerns the number of possible orders. There are dose-finding studies with combinations of agents that can lead to a large number of possible orders. In this case, it may not be feasible to work with all possible orders.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed design demonstrates the ability to effectively estimate MTD combinations in partially ordered dosefinding studies. Because it relaxes the monotonicity assumption, it can be considered a multivariate generalization of the CRM. Hence, it can serve as a link between single and multiple-agent dosefinding trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21652689      PMCID: PMC3485079          DOI: 10.1177/1740774511408748

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  13 in total

1.  Continual reassessment methods in phase I trials of the combination of two drugs in oncology.

Authors:  A Kramar; A Lebecq; E Candalh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies.

Authors:  John O'Quigley; Xavier Paoletti; Jean Maccario
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway; Stephanie Dunbar; Shyamal D Peddada
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space.

Authors:  Kai Wang; Anastasia Ivanova
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; L Z Shen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; M Pepe; L Fisher
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Phase I clinical trial of weekly combined topotecan and irinotecan.

Authors:  J Lokich
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.339

8.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Model calibration in the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Shing M Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Andrew S Wilton; Elyn R Riedel; Venkatraman E Seshan; David R Spriggs
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

View more
  30 in total

1.  Integrating the escalation and dose expansion studies into a unified Phase I clinical trial.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  A Phase I/II adaptive design to determine the optimal treatment regimen from a set of combination immunotherapies in high-risk melanoma.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Craig L Slingluff; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  A comparative study of adaptive dose-finding designs for phase I oncology trials of combination therapies.

Authors:  Akihiro Hirakawa; Nolan A Wages; Hiroyuki Sato; Shigeyuki Matsui
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Using the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Phase I design for completely or partially ordered treatment schedules.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; John O'Quigley; Mark R Conaway
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Model-Based Adaptive Optimal Design (MBAOD) Improves Combination Dose Finding Designs: an Example in Oncology.

Authors:  Philippe B Pierrillas; Sylvain Fouliard; Marylore Chenel; Andrew C Hooker; Lena E Friberg; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  AAA: triple adaptive Bayesian designs for the identification of optimal dose combinations in dual-agent dose finding trials.

Authors:  Jiaying Lyu; Yuan Ji; Naiqing Zhao; Daniel V T Catenacci
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 1.864

8.  A Generalized Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Agent Phase I Trials.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun; Nan Jia
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 1.452

9.  Comments on 'competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials' by M-K. Riviere, F. Dubois, S. Zohar.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  pocrm: an R-package for phase I trials of combinations of agents.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Nikole Varhegyi
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.