Literature DB >> 27393122

Integrating the escalation and dose expansion studies into a unified Phase I clinical trial.

Alexia Iasonos1, John O'Quigley2.   

Abstract

We focus on Phase I dose finding studies as they are currently undertaken. The design and analysis of these trials have changed over the last years and, in particular, it is now rare for a Phase I study to not include one or more dose-expansion cohorts (DEC). It is common to see DEC involving several hundred patients, building on an initial dose escalation study that may have no >20 to 30 patients. There has been recent focus by researchers on the design of DEC and the analysis of DEC data. It is reasonable to explicitly account for the uncertainty in the estimation of the MTD, the dose upon which the whole of the DEC is currently based. In this paper, we focus on the dose escalation phase prior to the DEC, with the purpose of adapting it to the needs of DEC. Specifically, before beginning the DEC phase, we need to identify those dose levels that will be taken into the DEC. We define a useful concept for this purpose, the co-MTD, and the results support that the estimated MTD and co-MTD contain the true MTD with high probability. We also provide stopping rules for when the data support that the dose escalation can end and the dose expansion can begin. Simulated trials support the use of the proposed approach and provide additional information on how this approach compares with current practice.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dose expansion; Dose finding; Phase I trials; Recommended Phase II dose

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27393122      PMCID: PMC5266504          DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  24 in total

1.  BAYESIAN PHASE I/II ADAPTIVELY RANDOMIZED ONCOLOGY TRIALS WITH COMBINED DRUGS.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies.

Authors:  S N Goodman; M L Zahurak; S Piantadosi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial.

Authors:  Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; David F McDermott; Bruce G Redman; Timothy M Kuzel; Michael R Harrison; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Harry A Drabkin; Saby George; Theodore F Logan; Kim A Margolin; Elizabeth R Plimack; Alexandre M Lambert; Ian M Waxman; Hans J Hammers
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitor imatinib mesylate and docetaxel: a modular phase I trial in androgen-independent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul Mathew; Peter F Thall; Donnah Jones; Cherie Perez; Corazon Bucana; Patricia Troncoso; Sun-Jin Kim; Isaiah J Fidler; Christopher Logothetis
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-08-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial.

Authors:  Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi; Omid Hamid; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Anthony M Joshua; Wen-Jen Hwu; Tara C Gangadhar; Amita Patnaik; Roxana Dronca; Hassane Zarour; Richard W Joseph; Peter Boasberg; Bartosz Chmielowski; Christine Mateus; Michael A Postow; Kevin Gergich; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Robert Iannone; Scot W Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway; Ken Cheung; Ying Yuan; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 2.486

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

Authors:  Haitao Pan; Fang Xie; Ping Liu; Jielai Xia; Yuan Ji
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Dose expansion cohorts in Phase I trials.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 1.452

10.  Evaluating the performance of copula models in phase I-II clinical trials under model misspecification.

Authors:  Kristen Cunanan; Joseph S Koopmeiners
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Overcoming obstacles in the design of cancer anorexia/weight loss trials.

Authors:  Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Jeffrey Crawford; William J Evans; Aminah Jatoi
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 6.312

2.  Phase I clinical trials in adoptive T-cell therapies.

Authors:  Sean M Devlin; Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 1.680

3.  Stopping rules for phase I clinical trials with dose expansion cohorts.

Authors:  Sean M Devlin; Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 2.494

4.  Calcium electroporation for recurrent head and neck cancer: A clinical phase I study.

Authors:  Christina Caroline Plaschke; Julie Gehl; Helle Hjorth Johannesen; Barbara Malene Fischer; Andreas Kjaer; Anne Fog Lomholt; Irene Wessel
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.