Rebecca B Silva1, Christina Yap2, Richard Carvajal3, Shing M Lee1,3. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY. 2. Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom. 3. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
Simulation studies have shown that novel designs such as the continual reassessment method and the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design outperform the 3 + 3 design by recommending the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more often, using less patients, and allotting more patients to the MTD. However, it is not clear whether these novel designs would have yielded different results in the context of real-world dose-finding trials. This is a commonly mentioned reason for the continuous use of 3 + 3 designs for oncology trials, with investigators considering simulation studies not sufficiently convincing to warrant the additional design complexity of novel designs. METHODS: We randomly sampled 60 published dose-finding trials to obtain 22 that used the 3 + 3 design, identified an MTD, published toxicity data, and had more than two dose levels. We compared the published MTD with the estimated MTD using the continual reassessment method and BOIN using target toxicity rates of 25% and 30% and toxicity data from the trial. Moreover, we compared patient allocation and sample size assuming that these novel designs had been implemented. RESULTS: Model-based designs chose dose levels higher than the published MTD in about 40% of the trials, with estimated and observed toxicity rates closer to the target toxicity rates of 25% and 30%. They also assigned less patients to suboptimal doses and permitted faster dose escalation. CONCLUSION: This study using published dose-finding trials shows that novel designs would recommend different MTDs and confirms the advantages of these designs compared with the 3 + 3 design, which were demonstrated by simulation studies.
Simulation studies have shown that novel designs such as the continual reassessment method and the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design outperform the 3 + 3 design by recommending the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more often, using less patients, and allotting more patients to the MTD. However, it is not clear whether these novel designs would have yielded different results in the context of real-world dose-finding trials. This is a commonly mentioned reason for the continuous use of 3 + 3 designs for oncology trials, with investigators considering simulation studies not sufficiently convincing to warrant the additional design complexity of novel designs. METHODS: We randomly sampled 60 published dose-finding trials to obtain 22 that used the 3 + 3 design, identified an MTD, published toxicity data, and had more than two dose levels. We compared the published MTD with the estimated MTD using the continual reassessment method and BOIN using target toxicity rates of 25% and 30% and toxicity data from the trial. Moreover, we compared patient allocation and sample size assuming that these novel designs had been implemented. RESULTS: Model-based designs chose dose levels higher than the published MTD in about 40% of the trials, with estimated and observed toxicity rates closer to the target toxicity rates of 25% and 30%. They also assigned less patients to suboptimal doses and permitted faster dose escalation. CONCLUSION: This study using published dose-finding trials shows that novel designs would recommend different MTDs and confirms the advantages of these designs compared with the 3 + 3 design, which were demonstrated by simulation studies.
Authors: Jorge A Garcia; Tarek Mekhail; Paul Elson; Laura Wood; Ronald M Bukowski; Robert Dreicer; Brian I Rini Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Amye J Tevaarwerk; Kyle D Holen; Dona B Alberti; Carolyn Sidor; Jamie Arnott; Check Quon; George Wilding; Glenn Liu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Pamela L Kunz; Aiwu R He; A Dimitrios Colevas; Michael J Pishvaian; Jimmy J Hwang; Pamela L Clemens; Marianne Messina; Remigiusz Kaleta; Fernanda Abrahao; Branimir I Sikic; John L Marshall Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Sharon B Love; Sarah Brown; Christopher J Weir; Chris Harbron; Christina Yap; Birgit Gaschler-Markefski; James Matcham; Louise Caffrey; Christopher McKevitt; Sally Clive; Charlie Craddock; James Spicer; Victoria Cornelius Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 7.640