X Paoletti1, M Ezzalfani2, C Le Tourneau3. 1. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Department, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; INSERM U1018, CESP, Paris-Sud University, Villejuif. Electronic address: xavier.paoletti@gustaveroussy.fr. 2. INSERM/Institut Curie/Mines ParisTech U900, Paris. 3. INSERM/Institut Curie/Mines ParisTech U900, Paris; Department of Medical Oncology, Clinical Trial Unit, Institut Curie, Paris & Saint-Cloud, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 95% of published phase I trials have used the 3 + 3 design to identify the dose to be recommended for phase II trials. However, the statistical community agrees on the limitations of the 3 + 3 design compared with model-based approaches. Moreover, the mechanisms of action of targeted agents strongly challenge the hypothesis that the maximum tolerated dose constitutes the optimal dose, and more outcomes including clinical and biological activity increasingly need to be taken into account to identify the optimal dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We review key elements from clinical publications and from the statistical literature to show that the 3 + 3 design lacks the necessary flexibility to address the challenges of targeted agents. RESULTS: The design issues raised by expansion cohorts, new definitions of dose-limiting toxicity and trials of combinations are not easily addressed by the 3 + 3 design or its extensions. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative statistical proposals have been developed to make a better use of the complex data generated by phase I trials. Their applications require a close collaboration between all actors of early phase clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: More than 95% of published phase I trials have used the 3 + 3 design to identify the dose to be recommended for phase II trials. However, the statistical community agrees on the limitations of the 3 + 3 design compared with model-based approaches. Moreover, the mechanisms of action of targeted agents strongly challenge the hypothesis that the maximum tolerated dose constitutes the optimal dose, and more outcomes including clinical and biological activity increasingly need to be taken into account to identify the optimal dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We review key elements from clinical publications and from the statistical literature to show that the 3 + 3 design lacks the necessary flexibility to address the challenges of targeted agents. RESULTS: The design issues raised by expansion cohorts, new definitions of dose-limiting toxicity and trials of combinations are not easily addressed by the 3 + 3 design or its extensions. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative statistical proposals have been developed to make a better use of the complex data generated by phase I trials. Their applications require a close collaboration between all actors of early phase clinical trials.
Authors: Arif Manji; Irene Brana; Eitan Amir; George Tomlinson; Ian F Tannock; Philippe L Bedard; Amit Oza; Lillian L Siu; Albiruni R Abdul Razak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; William T Barry; Michael Birrer; Shannon N Westin; Karen A Cadoo; Geoffrey I Shapiro; Erica L Mayer; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Robert L Coleman; Bose Kochupurakkal; Christin Whalen; Jennifer Curtis; Sarah Farooq; Weixiu Luo; Julia Eismann; Mary K Buss; Carol Aghajanian; Gordon B Mills; Sangeetha Palakurthi; Paul Kirschmeier; Joyce Liu; Lewis C Cantley; Scott H Kaufmann; Elizabeth M Swisher; Alan D D'Andrea; Eric Winer; Gerburg M Wulf; Ursula A Matulonis Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 41.316