Literature DB >> 30367457

A hybrid phase I-II/III clinical trial design allowing dose re-optimization in phase III.

Andrew G Chapple1, Peter F Thall2.   

Abstract

Conventionally, evaluation of a new drug, A, is done in three phases. Phase I is based on toxicity to determine a "maximum tolerable dose" (MTD) of A, phase II is conducted to decide whether A at the MTD is promising in terms of response probability, and if so a large randomized phase III trial is conducted to compare A to a control treatment, C , usually based on survival time or progression free survival time. It is widely recognized that this paradigm has many flaws. A recent approach combines the first two phases by conducting a phase I-II trial, which chooses an optimal dose based on both efficacy and toxicity, and evaluation of A at the selected optimal phase I-II dose then is done in a phase III trial. This paper proposes a new design paradigm, motivated by the possibility that the optimal phase I-II dose may not maximize mean survival time with A. We propose a hybridized design, which we call phase I-II/III, that combines phase I-II and phase III by allowing the chosen optimal phase I-II dose of A to be re-optimized based on survival time data from phase I-II patients and the first portion of phase III. The phase I-II/III design uses adaptive randomization in phase I-II, and relies on a mixture model for the survival time distribution as a function of efficacy, toxicity, and dose. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the phase I-II/III design and compare it to the usual approach that does not re-optimize the dose of A in phase III.
© 2018 International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian design; Clinical trial; dose finding; phase I-II clinical trial; phase III clinical trial

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30367457      PMCID: PMC6486466          DOI: 10.1111/biom.12994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  26 in total

1.  Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Peter F Thall; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Failures in Phase III: Causes and Consequences.

Authors:  Bostjan Seruga; Alberto Ocana; Eitan Amir; Ian F Tannock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  A predictive probability design for phase II cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  J Jack Lee; Diane D Liu
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials.

Authors:  P F Thall; R Simon
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Trial watch: phase III and submission failures: 2007-2010.

Authors:  John Arrowsmith
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; M Pepe; L Fisher
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Adaptive dose modification for phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Yiyi Chu; Haitao Pan; Ying Yuan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials.

Authors:  P C O'Brien; T R Fleming
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs.

Authors:  Peter F Thall; John D Cook
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  3 in total

1.  Adaptive Enrichment Designs in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Peter F Thall
Journal:  Annu Rev Stat Appl       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 7.917

2.  A phase I-II design based on periodic and continuous monitoring of disease status and the times to toxicity and death.

Authors:  Juhee Lee; Peter F Thall; Pavlos Msaouel
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Is more better? An analysis of toxicity and response outcomes from dose-finding clinical trials in cancer.

Authors:  Kristian Brock; Victoria Homer; Gurjinder Soul; Claire Potter; Cody Chiuzan; Shing Lee
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 4.430

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.