J Fraisse1, D Dinart2, D Tosi1, C Bellera2, C Mollevi3,4. 1. Unité de Biométrie, Institut du Cancer Montpellier (ICM), Université de Montpellier, 208 rue des Apothicaire, 34298, Montpellier Cedex 5, France. 2. Inserm CIC1401, Module Epidémiologie clinique, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France. 3. Unité de Biométrie, Institut du Cancer Montpellier (ICM), Université de Montpellier, 208 rue des Apothicaire, 34298, Montpellier Cedex 5, France. Caroline.Mollevi@icm.unicancer.fr. 4. Institut Desbrest d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, UMR Inserm - Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. Caroline.Mollevi@icm.unicancer.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected. RESULTS: We retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity.
BACKGROUND: Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected. RESULTS: We retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity.
Authors: Karen L Reckamp; Kostyantyn Krysan; Jason D Morrow; Ginger L Milne; Robert A Newman; Christopher Tucker; Robert M Elashoff; Steven M Dubinett; Robert A Figlin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David Jamieson; Melanie J Griffin; Julieann Sludden; Yvette Drew; Nicola Cresti; Karen Swales; Mark Merriman; Rodger Allen; Paul Bevan; Markus Buerkle; Carola Mala; Vicky Coyle; Lisa Rodgers; Emma Dean; Alastair Greystoke; Udai Banerji; Richard H Wilson; T R Jeffery Evans; Alan Anthoney; Malcolm Ranson; Alan V Boddy; Ruth Plummer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jonathan Cebon; Elke Jäger; Mark J Shackleton; Peter Gibbs; Ian D Davis; Wendie Hopkins; Sharen Gibbs; Qiyuan Chen; Julia Karbach; Heather Jackson; Duncan P MacGregor; Sue Sturrock; Hilary Vaughan; Eugene Maraskovsky; Antje Neumann; Eric Hoffman; Mathew L Sherman; Alexander Knuth Journal: Cancer Immun Date: 2003-07-16
Authors: Robin Parihar; Padma Nadella; Adrian Lewis; Rhonda Jensen; Carrie De Hoff; Julie E Dierksheide; Anne M VanBuskirk; Cynthia M Magro; Donn C Young; Charles L Shapiro; William E Carson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Eric Van Den Neste; Bruno Cazin; Ann Janssens; Eva González-Barca; María José Terol; Vincent Levy; Jaime Pérez de Oteyza; Pierre Zachee; Andrew Saunders; Mercè de Frias; Clara Campàs Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Daniel V Araujo; Bruno Uchoa; Juan José Soto-Castillo; Larissa L Furlan; Marc Oliva Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.864