Ruitao Lin1, Yanhong Zhou1, Fangrong Yan2, Daniel Li3, Ying Yuan1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. 3. Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For immunotherapy, such as checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, where the efficacy does not necessarily increase with the dose, the maximum tolerated dose may not be the optimal dose for treating patients. For these novel therapies, the objective of dose-finding trials is to identify the optimal biologic dose (OBD) that optimizes patients' risk-benefit trade-off. METHODS: We propose a simple and flexible Bayesian optimal interval phase I/II (BOIN12) trial design to find the OBD that optimizes the risk-benefit trade-off. The BOIN12 design makes the decision of dose escalation and de-escalation by simultaneously taking account of efficacy and toxicity and adaptively allocates patients to the dose that optimizes the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. We performed simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the BOIN12 design. RESULTS: Compared with existing phase I/II dose-finding designs, the BOIN12 design is simpler to implement, has higher accuracy to identify the OBD, and allocates more patients to the OBD. One of the most appealing features of the BOIN12 design is that its adaptation rule can be pretabulated and included in the protocol. During the trial conduct, clinicians can simply look up the decision table to allocate patients to a dose without complicated computation. CONCLUSION: The BOIN12 design is simple to implement and yields desirable operating characteristics. It overcomes the computational and implementation complexity that plagues existing Bayesian phase I/II dose-finding designs and provides a useful design to optimize the dose of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. User-friendly software is freely available to facilitate the application of the BOIN12 design.
PURPOSE: For immunotherapy, such as checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, where the efficacy does not necessarily increase with the dose, the maximum tolerated dose may not be the optimal dose for treating patients. For these novel therapies, the objective of dose-finding trials is to identify the optimal biologic dose (OBD) that optimizes patients' risk-benefit trade-off. METHODS: We propose a simple and flexible Bayesian optimal interval phase I/II (BOIN12) trial design to find the OBD that optimizes the risk-benefit trade-off. The BOIN12 design makes the decision of dose escalation and de-escalation by simultaneously taking account of efficacy and toxicity and adaptively allocates patients to the dose that optimizes the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. We performed simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the BOIN12 design. RESULTS: Compared with existing phase I/II dose-finding designs, the BOIN12 design is simpler to implement, has higher accuracy to identify the OBD, and allocates more patients to the OBD. One of the most appealing features of the BOIN12 design is that its adaptation rule can be pretabulated and included in the protocol. During the trial conduct, clinicians can simply look up the decision table to allocate patients to a dose without complicated computation. CONCLUSION: The BOIN12 design is simple to implement and yields desirable operating characteristics. It overcomes the computational and implementation complexity that plagues existing Bayesian phase I/II dose-finding designs and provides a useful design to optimize the dose of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. User-friendly software is freely available to facilitate the application of the BOIN12 design.
Authors: Reena P Thomas; Seema Nagpal; Michael Iv; Scott G Soltys; Sophie Bertrand; Judith S Pelpola; Robyn Ball; Jaden Yang; Vandana Sundaram; Jonathan Lavezo; Donald Born; Hannes Vogel; J Martin Brown; Lawrence D Recht Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Naomi B Haas; Leonard J Appleman; Mark Stein; Maryann Redlinger; Melissa Wilks; Xiaowei Xu; Angelique Onorati; Anusha Kalavacharla; Taehyong Kim; Chao Jie Zhen; Sabah Kadri; Jeremy P Segal; Phyllis A Gimotty; Lisa E Davis; Ravi K Amaravadi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susan Slovin; Syed Hussain; Fred Saad; Jorge Garcia; Joel Picus; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Mateus Crespo; Penelope Flohr; Ruth Riisnaes; Chihche Lin; Harold Keer; Aram Oganesian; Paul Workman; Johann de Bono Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Haeyoung Kim; Yeon Jeong Kim; Donghyun Park; Woong-Yang Park; Doo Ho Choi; Won Park; Won Kyung Cho; Nalee Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.872