Literature DB >> 24137041

A phase I/II seamless dose escalation/expansion with adaptive randomization scheme (SEARS).

Haitao Pan1, Fang Xie, Ping Liu, Jielai Xia, Yuan Ji.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Standard drug development conducts phase I dose finding and phase II dose expansion sequentially and separately. Information between the two phases is rarely shared. Administratively, such a sequential process is time-consuming and burdensome.
PURPOSE: We propose seamless dose escalation/expansion with adaptive randomization scheme (SEARS), a seamless design that combines phase I dose escalation based on toxicity with phase II dose expansion and dose comparison based on efficacy. SEARS allows extension from phase I to phase II under one design with no gap in between and employs a dynamic and parallel procedure involving simultaneous dose escalation, dose graduation, and adaptive randomization.
METHODS: SEARS integrates three components into a seamless scheme. Specifically, in phase I, SEARS applies the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) method to monitor dose escalation based on toxicity outcome. Doses that show promising efficacy and safety are immediately graduated from phase I and placed to a phase II stage in which patients are adaptively randomized based on efficacy outcome. Phase I dose escalation, dose graduation, and phase II adaptive randomization proceed simultaneously throughout the entire trial.
RESULTS: Examples are given comparing SEARS with two other designs, in which superior performance of SEARS is demonstrated. An important and promising finding is that SEARS reduces sample sizes without losing power. R program and demo slides of SEARS can be obtained at http://health.bsd.uchicago.edu/yji/soft.html LIMITATION: We assume that the binary efficacy and toxicity response can be measured in the same time frame. This is often achievable with surrogate efficacy markers in practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24137041      PMCID: PMC4281526          DOI: 10.1177/1740774513500081

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


  12 in total

1.  A Bayesian dose-finding trial with adaptive dose expansion to flexibly assess efficacy and safety of an investigational drug.

Authors:  Scott M Berry; Walter Spinelli; Gary S Littman; John Z Liang; Parvin Fardipour; Donald A Berry; Roger J Lewis; Michael Krams
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Daniel J Sargent; Sumithra Mandrekar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios.

Authors:  Guosheng Yin; Yisheng Li; Yuan Ji
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies.

Authors:  Xuelin Huang; Swati Biswas; Yasuhiro Oki; Jean-Pierre Issa; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Dose-finding design driven by efficacy in onco-hematology phase I/II trials.

Authors:  V Seegers; S Chevret; M Resche-Rigon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials.

Authors:  Yuan Ji; Sue-Jane Wang
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial.

Authors:  B Nebiyou Bekele; Yu Shen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials.

Authors:  Yuan Ji; Ping Liu; Yisheng Li; B Nebiyou Bekele
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  The bivariate continual reassessment method. extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2002-06

10.  Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks.

Authors:  B Nebiyou Bekele; Yuan Ji; Yu Shen; Peter F Thall
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2007-12-14       Impact factor: 5.899

View more
  9 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 modular framework for early-phase seamless oncology trials.

Authors:  Philip S Boonstra; Thomas M Braun; Elizabeth C Chase
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.599

Review 3.  Seamless Designs: Current Practice and Considerations for Early-Phase Drug Development in Oncology.

Authors:  Brian P Hobbs; Pedro C Barata; Yada Kanjanapan; Channing J Paller; Jane Perlmutter; Gregory R Pond; Tatiana M Prowell; Eric H Rubin; Lesley K Seymour; Nolan A Wages; Timothy A Yap; David Feltquate; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; William Grossman; David S Hong; S Percy Ivy; Lillian L Siu; Steven A Reeves; Gary L Rosner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a bayesian model selection approach.

Authors:  Haitao Pan; Cailin Zhu; Feng Zhang; Ying Yuan; Shemin Zhang; Wenhong Zhang; Chanjuan Li; Ling Wang; Jielai Xia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Quality improvement and practice-based research in neurology using the electronic medical record.

Authors:  Demetrius M Maraganore; Roberta Frigerio; Nazia Kazmi; Steven L Meyers; Meredith Sefa; Shaun A Walters; Jonathan C Silverstein
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2015-10

6.  Evaluation of a multi-arm multi-stage Bayesian design for phase II drug selection trials - an example in hemato-oncology.

Authors:  Louis Jacob; Maria Uvarova; Sandrine Boulet; Inva Begaj; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Extensions of the mTPI and TEQR designs to include non-monotone efficacy in addition to toxicity for optimal dose determination for early phase immunotherapy oncology trials.

Authors:  Revathi Ananthakrishnan; Stephanie Green; Daniel Li; Michael LaValley
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2018-01-31

8.  Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.

Authors:  Amy S Ruppert; Abigail B Shoben
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2018-08-24

9.  2D (2 Dimensional) TEQR design for Determining the optimal Dose for safety and efficacy.

Authors:  Revathi Ananthakrishnan; Stephanie Green; Daniel Li; Michael LaValley
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-10-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.