A comprehensive comparison of phase I dose escalation methods

Efehan Ulas, Filiz Karaman

Abstract


Phase I clinical trials are fundamental in drug development because they bring proposed designs to initial clinical testing. Recently, several dose finding methods have been developed. However, the comparison of those designs and traditional designs are not intensive. This study compares the most commonly used phase I dose finding methods and determines which one performs better. To do so, two different real life stories are analyzed through simulation studies. It was found that the 3+3 design, the most popular method employed by scientists, produced the worst results. More reliable and applicable results for phase I dose escalation trials can be produced by BMA-CRM, CRM, and BCRM designs.


Keywords


Dose escalation, Phase I trials, Biomarkers, Maximum Tolerated Dose

Full Text:

PDF

References


Friedman, L.M., Furberg, C. & Demets, D.L. (2010).

Fundamentals of clinical trials. Springer, New York. Pp.

-130.

Guo, W., Wang, S.J., Yang, S., Lin, S. & Ji, Y. (2016). A

Bayesian interval dose-finding design addressing Ockham’s

razor: mTPI-2. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08737.

Hansen, A.R., Graham, D.M., Pond, G.R. & Siu, L.L.

(2014). Phase 1 trial design: Us 3+ 3 the best? Cancer

Control, 21(3): 200-209.

Hoeting, J.A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A.E. & Volinsky, C.T.

(1999). Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical

science, 14(4): 382-401.

Iasonos, A., Wilton, A.S., Riedel, E.R., Seshan, V.E. &

Spriggs, D.R. (2008). A comprehensive comparison of the

continual reassessment method to the standard 3+ 3 dose

escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clinical

Trials, 5(5): 465-477.

Jaki, T., Clive, S. & Weir, C.J. (2013). Principles of dose

finding studies in cancer: A comparison of trial designs.

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 71(5): 1107-

Jennison, C. & Turnbull, B.W. (2013). Interim monitoring

of clinical trials: Decision theory, dynamic programming

and optimal stopping. Kuwait Journal of Science, 40(2):

-59.

Ji, Y., Liu, P., Li, Y. & Bekele, B.N. (2010). A modified

toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials.

Clinical Trials, 7(6):653-663.

Ji, Y. & Wang, S.J. (2013). Modified toxicity probability

interval design: A safer and more reliable method than the

+ 3 design for practical phase I trials. Journal of Clinical

Oncology, 31(14): 1785-1791.

Liu, S. & Yuan, Y. (2015). Bayesian optimal interval

designs for phase I clinical trials. Journal of the Royal

Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 64(3):

-523.

O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M. & Fisher, L. (1990). Continual

reassessment method: A practical design for phase 1 clinical

trials in cancer. Biometrics, 46(1): 33-48.

O’Quigley, J., & Chevret, S. (1991). Methods for dose

finding studies in cancer clinical trials: A review and results

of a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in medicine, 10(11): 1647-

O’Quigley, J. & Shen, L.Z. (1996). Continual reassessment

method: A likelihood approach. Biometrics, 52(2): 673-684.

Paoletti, X., Ezzalfani, M. & Le Tourneau, C. (2015).

Statistical controversies in clinical research: Requiem for the

+ 3 design for phase I trials. Annals of Oncology, mdv266.

Savci, S. (2016). Dubinin-radushkevich isotherm studies of

equilibrium biosorption of some veterinary pharmaceuticals

by using live activated sludge. Kuwait Journal of Science,

(3): 142-147.

Wages, N.A., Conaway, M.R., & O’Quigley, J. (2013).

Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method

relative to an optimal benchmark. Clinical Trials, 10(6):

-875.

Wong, K.M., Capasso, A., & Eckhardt, S. G. (2016). The

changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nature

Reviews Clinical Oncology, 13(2): 106-117.

Yang, S., Wang, S.J., and Ji, Y. (2015). An integrated dosefinding

tool for phase I trials in oncology. Contemporary

clinical Trials, 45(B): 426–434.

Yin, G., & Yuan, Y. (2009). Bayesian model averaging

continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials.

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(487):

-968.

Yuan, Y., Hess, K.R., Hilsenbeck, S.G., & Gilbert, M.R.

(2016). Bayesian optimal interval design: A simple and

well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clinical

Cancer Research, 22(17): 4291-4301.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.