BACKGROUND: Phase I trials often include a dose expansion cohort (DEC), in which additional patients are treated at the estimated maximum tolerated dose (MTD) after dose escalation, with the goal of ensuring that data are available from more than six patients at a single dose level. However, protocols do not always detail how, or even if, the additional toxicity data will be used to reanalyze the MTD or whether observed toxicity in the DEC will warrant changing the assigned dose. A DEC strategy has not been statistically justified. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study of two phase I designs: the "3+3" and the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). We quantified how many patients are assigned the true MTD using a 10 to 20 patient DEC and how a sensible reanalysis using the DEC changes the probability of selecting the true MTD. We compared these results with those from an equivalently sized larger CRM that does not include a DEC. RESULTS: With either the 3+3 or CRM, reanalysis with the DEC increased the probability of identifying the true MTD. However, a large CRM without a DEC was more likely to identify the true MTD while still treating 10 or 15 patients at this dose level. CONCLUSIONS: Where feasible, a CRM design with no explicit DEC is preferred to designs that fix a dose for all patients in a DEC.
BACKGROUND: Phase I trials often include a dose expansion cohort (DEC), in which additional patients are treated at the estimated maximum tolerated dose (MTD) after dose escalation, with the goal of ensuring that data are available from more than six patients at a single dose level. However, protocols do not always detail how, or even if, the additional toxicity data will be used to reanalyze the MTD or whether observed toxicity in the DEC will warrant changing the assigned dose. A DEC strategy has not been statistically justified. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study of two phase I designs: the "3+3" and the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). We quantified how many patients are assigned the true MTD using a 10 to 20 patient DEC and how a sensible reanalysis using the DEC changes the probability of selecting the true MTD. We compared these results with those from an equivalently sized larger CRM that does not include a DEC. RESULTS: With either the 3+3 or CRM, reanalysis with the DEC increased the probability of identifying the true MTD. However, a large CRM without a DEC was more likely to identify the true MTD while still treating 10 or 15 patients at this dose level. CONCLUSIONS: Where feasible, a CRM design with no explicit DEC is preferred to designs that fix a dose for all patients in a DEC.
Authors: André Rogatko; David Schoeneck; William Jonas; Mourad Tighiouart; Fadlo R Khuri; Alan Porter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tomasz P Srokowski; James E Liebmann; Manuel R Modiano; Gary I Cohen; Barbara Pro; Jorge E Romaguera; Christine Kuepfer; Jack W Singer; Luis E Fayad Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer R Diamond; Bruno R Bastos; Ryan J Hansen; Daniel L Gustafson; S Gail Eckhardt; Eunice L Kwak; Shuchi S Pandya; Graham C Fletcher; Todd M Pitts; Gillian N Kulikowski; Mark Morrow; Jamie Arnott; Mark R Bray; Carolyn Sidor; Wells Messersmith; Geoffrey I Shapiro Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A Doussau; B Asselain; M C Le Deley; B Geoerger; F Doz; G Vassal; X Paoletti Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 2.226
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
Authors: Hartmut Döhner; Elihu Estey; David Grimwade; Sergio Amadori; Frederick R Appelbaum; Thomas Büchner; Hervé Dombret; Benjamin L Ebert; Pierre Fenaux; Richard A Larson; Ross L Levine; Francesco Lo-Coco; Tomoki Naoe; Dietger Niederwieser; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Miguel Sanz; Jorge Sierra; Martin S Tallman; Hwei-Fang Tien; Andrew H Wei; Bob Löwenberg; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 22.113
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
Authors: P S Boonstra; T M Braun; J M G Taylor; K M Kidwell; E L Bellile; S Daignault; L Zhao; K A Griffith; T S Lawrence; G P Kalemkerian; M J Schipper Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Alexander J Bridges; Ranjit K Mehta; Sushmita Shukla; Matthew J Schipper; Theodore S Lawrence; Mukesh K Nyati Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Sharon B Love; Sarah Brown; Christopher J Weir; Chris Harbron; Christina Yap; Birgit Gaschler-Markefski; James Matcham; Louise Caffrey; Christopher McKevitt; Sally Clive; Charlie Craddock; James Spicer; Victoria Cornelius Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 7.640