Xavier Paoletti1, Christophe Le Tourneau2, Jaap Verweij3, Lillian L Siu4, Lesley Seymour5, Sophie Postel-Vinay6, Laurence Collette7, Elisa Rizzo7, Percy Ivy8, David Olmos9, Christophe Massard6, Denis Lacombe7, Stan B Kaye10, Jean-Charles Soria6. 1. Institut Curie, Biostatistics dpt & INSERM U900, Paris, France. Electronic address: xavier.paoletti@curie.fr. 2. Institut Curie, Medical Oncology dpt & INSERM U900, Paris, France. 3. Erasmus University MC, Department of Medical Oncology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 5. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group & Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 6. Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, DITEP (Département d'Innovations Thérapeutiques et Essais Précoces), Villejuif, France; Université Paris-Sud XI, Orsay, France. 7. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarter, Brussels, Belgium. 8. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Rockville, USA. 9. Prostate Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Clinical Research Programme Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain. 10. Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute for Cancer Research, Drug Development Unit, Sutton, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents. METHODS: A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay. RESULTS: Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied. CONCLUSION: The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper.
INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents. METHODS: A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay. RESULTS: Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied. CONCLUSION: The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper.
Authors: Alexander Drilon; Anne A Eaton; Katja Schindler; Mrinal M Gounder; David R Spriggs; Pamela Harris; S Percy Ivy; Alexia Iasonos; Mario E Lacouture; David M Hyman Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shing M Lee; Daniel Backenroth; Ying Kuen Ken Cheung; Dawn L Hershman; Diana Vulih; Barry Anderson; Percy Ivy; Lori Minasian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Valsamo Anagnostou; Mark Yarchoan; Aaron R Hansen; Hao Wang; Franco Verde; Elad Sharon; Deborah Collyar; Laura Q M Chow; Patrick M Forde Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531