PURPOSE: Alternatives to the standard design for conducting phase I trials are proposed with increasing frequency. This study was undertaken to determine how phase I trials are currently conducted and to provide a basis for evaluation of evolving methodology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All published phase I trials from a single institution over a 3-year period were reviewed to determine the method of selection of the recommended dose for a phase II trial of a new agent, type and extent of toxicity, number of patients treated at the recommended dose, and clinical response. RESULTS: All 23 published trials used the standard method of entering cohorts of patients at increasing dose levels and observing toxic effects to determine the dose recommended for phase II study. Among 610 patients, 26% were treated at or within 10% of the recommended dose and 35% were treated with less than 50% of the recommended dose or on a trial that yielded no recommended dose. Among 18 trials using agents previously tested in humans, fewer patients were treated at much less than the recommended dose. For trials in which myelosuppression was dose-limiting, the estimated probability of serious myelosuppression associated with the recommended dose ranged from 23% to 66%. Nineteen patients (3%) responded to therapy. CONCLUSION: This summary of phase I trials recently conducted at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center confirms the need for alternative methods, provides baseline information against which alternatively conducted trials can be compared, and demonstrates some practical clinical trial issues not generally considered when alternative methods are proposed.
PURPOSE: Alternatives to the standard design for conducting phase I trials are proposed with increasing frequency. This study was undertaken to determine how phase I trials are currently conducted and to provide a basis for evaluation of evolving methodology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All published phase I trials from a single institution over a 3-year period were reviewed to determine the method of selection of the recommended dose for a phase II trial of a new agent, type and extent of toxicity, number of patients treated at the recommended dose, and clinical response. RESULTS: All 23 published trials used the standard method of entering cohorts of patients at increasing dose levels and observing toxic effects to determine the dose recommended for phase II study. Among 610 patients, 26% were treated at or within 10% of the recommended dose and 35% were treated with less than 50% of the recommended dose or on a trial that yielded no recommended dose. Among 18 trials using agents previously tested in humans, fewer patients were treated at much less than the recommended dose. For trials in which myelosuppression was dose-limiting, the estimated probability of serious myelosuppression associated with the recommended dose ranged from 23% to 66%. Nineteen patients (3%) responded to therapy. CONCLUSION: This summary of phase I trials recently conducted at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center confirms the need for alternative methods, provides baseline information against which alternatively conducted trials can be compared, and demonstrates some practical clinical trial issues not generally considered when alternative methods are proposed.
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Laura A Levit; Peter C Adamson; Suanna Bruinooge; Howard A Burris; Michael A Carducci; Adam P Dicker; Mithat Gönen; Stephen M Keefe; Michael A Postow; Michael A Thompson; David M Waterhouse; Susan L Weiner; Lynn M Schuchter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca D Pentz; Margaret White; R Donald Harvey; Zachary Luke Farmer; Yuan Liu; Colleen Lewis; Olga Dashevskaya; Taofeek Owonikoko; Fadlo R Khuri Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Filipa Lynce; Matthew J Blackburn; Ling Cai; Heping Wang; Larry Rubinstein; Pamela Harris; Claudine Isaacs; Paula R Pohlmann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nancy Kass; Holly Taylor; Linda Fogarty; Jeremy Sugarman; Steven N Goodman; Annallys Goodwin-Landher; Michael Carducci; Herbert Hurwitz Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Barbara S Craft; Razelle Kurzrock; Xiudong Lei; Roy Herbst; Scott Lippman; Siqing Fu; Daniel D Karp Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Takefumi Komiya; Regan M Memmott; Gideon M Blumenthal; Wendy Bernstein; Marc S Ballas; Roopa De Chowdhury; Guinevere Chun; Cody J Peer; William D Figg; David J Liewehr; Seth M Steinberg; Giuseppe Giaccone; Eva Szabo; Shigeru Kawabata; Junji Tsurutani; Arun Rajan; Phillip A Dennis Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2019-06