Alexia Iasonos1, John O'Quigley2. 1. Alexia Iasonos, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and John O'Quigley, Université Paris VI, Paris, France. iasonosa@mskcc.org. 2. Alexia Iasonos, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and John O'Quigley, Université Paris VI, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We provide a comprehensive review of adaptive phase I clinical trials in oncology that used a statistical model to guide dose escalation to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). We describe the clinical setting, practical implications, and safety of such applications, with the aim of understanding how these designs work in practice. METHODS: We identified 53 phase I trials published between January 2003 and September 2013 that used the continual reassessment method (CRM), CRM using escalation with overdose control, or time-to-event CRM for late-onset toxicities. Study characteristics, design parameters, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, DLT rate, patient-dose allocation, overdose, underdose, sample size, and trial duration were abstracted from each study. In addition, we examined all studies in terms of safety, and we outlined the reasons why escalations occur and under what circumstances. RESULTS: On average, trials accrued 25 to 35 patients over a 2-year period and tested five dose levels. The average DLT rate was 18%, which is lower than in previous reports, whereas all levels above the MTD had an average DLT rate of 36%. On average, 39% of patients were treated at the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjacent level (one level above or below). CONCLUSION: This review of completed phase I studies confirms the safety and generalizability of model-guided, adaptive dose-escalation designs, and it provides an approach for using, interpreting, and understanding such designs to guide dose escalation in phase I trials.
PURPOSE: We provide a comprehensive review of adaptive phase I clinical trials in oncology that used a statistical model to guide dose escalation to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). We describe the clinical setting, practical implications, and safety of such applications, with the aim of understanding how these designs work in practice. METHODS: We identified 53 phase I trials published between January 2003 and September 2013 that used the continual reassessment method (CRM), CRM using escalation with overdose control, or time-to-event CRM for late-onset toxicities. Study characteristics, design parameters, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, DLT rate, patient-dose allocation, overdose, underdose, sample size, and trial duration were abstracted from each study. In addition, we examined all studies in terms of safety, and we outlined the reasons why escalations occur and under what circumstances. RESULTS: On average, trials accrued 25 to 35 patients over a 2-year period and tested five dose levels. The average DLT rate was 18%, which is lower than in previous reports, whereas all levels above the MTD had an average DLT rate of 36%. On average, 39% of patients were treated at the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjacent level (one level above or below). CONCLUSION: This review of completed phase I studies confirms the safety and generalizability of model-guided, adaptive dose-escalation designs, and it provides an approach for using, interpreting, and understanding such designs to guide dose escalation in phase I trials.
Authors: David M Peereboom; Jeffrey G Supko; Kathryn A Carson; Tracy Batchelor; Surasak Phuphanich; Glenn Lesser; Tom Mikkelsen; Tom Mikkelson; Joy Fisher; Serena Desideri; Xiaoying He; Stuart A Grossman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; Jeffrey G Supko; Tracy Batchelor; Glenn Lesser; Joy D Fisher; Steven Piantadosi; Stuart Grossman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mitchell A Garrison; Lisa A Hammond; Charles E Geyer; Garry Schwartz; Anthony W Tolcher; Leslie Smetzer; Jose A Figueroa; Murray Ducharme; John Coyle; Chris H Takimoto; Robert L De Jager; Eric K Rowinsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sunil Sharma; Joachim Beck; Monica Mita; Sofia Paul; Margaret M Woo; Margaret Squier; Brian Gadbaw; H Miles Prince Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Cristiana Sessa; Geoffrey I Shapiro; Kapil N Bhalla; Carolyn Britten; Karen S Jacks; Monica Mita; Vali Papadimitrakopoulou; Tim Pluard; Thomas A Samuel; Mikhail Akimov; Cornelia Quadt; Cristina Fernandez-Ibarra; Hong Lu; Stuart Bailey; Sandra Chica; Udai Banerji Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Eric K Rowinsky; Jinee Rizzo; Leonel Ochoa; Chris H Takimoto; Bahram Forouzesh; Garry Schwartz; Lisa A Hammond; Amita Patnaik; Joseph Kwiatek; Andrew Goetz; Louis Denis; Jeffrey McGuire; Anthony W Tolcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K A Thornton; A R Chen; M M Trucco; P Shah; B A Wilky; N Gul; M A Carrera-Haro; M Fogle Ferreira; U Shafique; J D Powell; C F Meyer; D M Loeb Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nolan A Wages; Craig A Portell; Michael E Williams; Mark R Conaway; Gina R Petroni Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Laura A Levit; Peter C Adamson; Suanna Bruinooge; Howard A Burris; Michael A Carducci; Adam P Dicker; Mithat Gönen; Stephen M Keefe; Michael A Postow; Michael A Thompson; David M Waterhouse; Susan L Weiner; Lynn M Schuchter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daphne Day; Arta M Monjazeb; Elad Sharon; S Percy Ivy; Eric H Rubin; Gary L Rosner; Marcus O Butler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531