Literature DB >> 24101039

Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.

Alexia Iasonos1, John O'Quigley.   

Abstract

Phase I trials are increasingly including dose-expansion cohorts after the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) has been reached to better characterize the toxicity profile or identify early signs of efficacy within a specific disease population. This article provides guidelines on how to monitor safety and re-evaluate the MTD using data obtained from expansion cohorts of phase I protocols. We illustrate how to implement a sequential monitoring rule for safety using a completed phase I trial that included an expansion cohort. We compare the accuracy of the revised MTD with the MTD obtained before expansion and with the true MTD based on simulated trials. The percent of trials that led to a change in the MTD, how far the revised MTD was from the true MTD, and the toxicity rates associated with each level are reported. When toxicity outcomes from the expansion cohort are taken into account, there is a 50% chance that a new, higher MTD will be recommended. Significant improvement in the accuracy of the MTD is obtained 30% of the time (ie, revised MTD is exactly the true MTD), and moderate improvement is obtained 80% of the time when the revised MTD is within a level from true MTD. Failure to include toxicity outcomes from additional patients treated during the expansion phase may result in a less accurate estimate of the MTD. This article provides investigators of phase I protocols with methodological tools to monitor safety and/or efficacy for patients accrued during the expansion phase and to update or confirm the established MTD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24101039      PMCID: PMC4979131          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.9949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  32 in total

1.  Dose-finding designs for HIV studies.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; M D Hughes; T Fenton
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Estimating the probability of toxicity at the target dose following an up-and-down design.

Authors:  Mario Stylianou; Michael Proschan; Nancy Flournoy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Sarah Zohar; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints.

Authors:  Shing M Lee; Bin Cheng; Ying Kuen Cheung
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Phase I study of AEE788, a novel multitarget inhibitor of ErbB- and VEGF-receptor-family tyrosine kinases, in recurrent glioblastoma patients.

Authors:  David A Reardon; Charles A Conrad; Timothy Cloughesy; Michael D Prados; Henry S Friedman; Kenneth D Aldape; Paul Mischel; Jane Xia; Clifford DiLea; Jerry Huang; William Mietlowski; Margaret Dugan; Wei Chen; W K Alfred Yung
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 3.333

6.  Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies.

Authors:  S N Goodman; M L Zahurak; S Piantadosi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne L Topalian; F Stephen Hodi; Julie R Brahmer; Scott N Gettinger; David C Smith; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Richard D Carvajal; Jeffrey A Sosman; Michael B Atkins; Philip D Leming; David R Spigel; Scott J Antonia; Leora Horn; Charles G Drake; Drew M Pardoll; Lieping Chen; William H Sharfman; Robert A Anders; Janis M Taube; Tracee L McMiller; Haiying Xu; Alan J Korman; Maria Jure-Kunkel; Shruti Agrawal; Daniel McDonald; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok Gupta; Jon M Wigginton; Mario Sznol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Phase I study of the antiangiogenic antibody bevacizumab and the mTOR/hypoxia-inducible factor inhibitor temsirolimus combined with liposomal doxorubicin: tolerance and biological activity.

Authors:  John Moroney; Siqing Fu; Stacy Moulder; Gerald Falchook; Thorunn Helgason; Charles Levenback; David Hong; Aung Naing; Jennifer Wheler; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AMG 102, a fully human hepatocyte growth factor-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in a first-in-human study of patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  Michael S Gordon; Christopher S Sweeney; David S Mendelson; S Gail Eckhardt; Abraham Anderson; Darrin M Beaupre; Daniel Branstetter; Teresa L Burgess; Angela Coxon; Hongjie Deng; Paula Kaplan-Lefko; Ian M Leitch; Kelly S Oliner; Lucy Yan; Min Zhu; Lia Gore
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Phase I study of saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with paclitaxel and/or carboplatin in patients with solid tumours.

Authors:  S Kaye; S Aamdal; R Jones; G Freyer; E Pujade-Lauraine; E G E de Vries; J Barriuso; S Sandhu; D S-W Tan; V Hartog; B Kuenen; R Ruijter; G B Kristensen; M Nyakas; S Barrett; W Burke; D Pietersma; M Stuart; U Emeribe; E Boven
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  21 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

Review 2.  Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Scientific Review of Phase I Protocols With Novel Dose-Escalation Designs: How Much Information Is Needed?

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Mithat Gönen; George J Bosl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Evaluating the role of phase I expansion cohorts in oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Robin E Norris; Mohadese Behtaj; Pingfu Fu; Afshin Dowlati
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.850

5.  Sequential monitoring of Phase I dose expansion cohorts.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Statistical justification of expansion cohorts in phase 1 cancer trials.

Authors:  Ali A Mokdad; Xian-Jin Xie; Hong Zhu; David E Gerber; Daniel F Heitjan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Pragmatic approaches to address expansion cohort design.

Authors:  Suzanne E Dahlberg; Robert J Gray
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Use of Expansion Cohorts in Phase I Trials and Probability of Success in Phase II for 381 Anticancer Drugs.

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

9.  A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Philip S Boonstra; Jincheng Shen; Jeremy M G Taylor; Thomas M Braun; Kent A Griffith; Stephanie Daignault; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Theodore S Lawrence; Matthew J Schipper
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Clinical trials: Early phase clinical trials-are dose expansion cohorts needed?

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 66.675

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.