![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Conventionally, phase I dose-finding trials aim to determine the maximum tolerated dose of a new drug under the assumption that both toxicity and efficacy monotonically increase with the dose. This paradigm, however, is not suitable for some molecularly targeted agents, such as monoclonal antibodies, for which efficacy often increases initially with the dose and then plateaus. For molecularly targeted agents, the goal is to find the optimal dose, defined as the lowest safe dose that achieves the highest efficacy. We develop a Bayesian phase I/II dose-finding design to find the optimal dose. We employ a logistic model with a plateau parameter to capture the increasing-then-plateau feature of the dose–efficacy relationship. We take the weighted likelihood approach to accommodate for the case where efficacy is possibly late-onset. Based on observed data, we continuously update the posterior estimates of toxicity and efficacy probabilities and adaptively assign patients to the optimal dose. The simulation studies show that the proposed design has good operating characteristics. This method is going to be applied in more than two phase I clinical trials as no other method is available for this specific setting. We also provide an R package dfmta that can be downloaded from CRAN website.
References
| 1. | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research . Clinical considerations for therapeutic cancer vaccines. Guidance for industry, 2011 . Google Scholar |
| 2. | Ellis, LM . Antiangiogenic therapy: more promise and, yet again, more questions. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3897–3899. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 3. | Morgan, B, Thomas, AL, Drevs, J Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for the pharmacological response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: results from two phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3955–3964. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 4. | Hunsberger, S, Rubinstein, LV, Dancey, J Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2171–2181. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 5. | Hirakawa, A . An adaptive dose-finding approach for correlated bivariate binary and continuous outcomes in phase I oncology trials. Stat Med 2012; 31: 516–532. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 6. | Cai, C, Yuan, Y, Ji, Y. A Bayesian phase I/II design for oncology clinical trials of combining biological agents. J R Stat Soc C 2014; 63: 159–173. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 7. | Ivanova, A, Xiao, C. Dose finding when the target dose is on a plateau of a dose-response curve: comparison of fully sequential designs. Pharm Stat 2013; 12: 309–314. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Zang, Y, Lee, J, Yuan, Y. Phase I dose-finding trial designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. Clin Trial 2014; 11: 319–327. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 9. | Stiles, JM, Amaya, C, Rains, S Targeting of beta adrenergic receptors results in therapeutic efficacy against models of hemangioendothelioma and angiosarcoma. PLoS One 2013; 8: e60021–e60021. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 10. | Liu, S, Yin, G, Yuan, Y. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. Ann Appl Stat 2013; 7: 2138–2156. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 11. | Yuan, Y, Yin, G. Bayesian phase I/II adaptively randomized oncology trials with combined drugs. Ann Appl Stat 2011; 5: 924–942. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 12. | Jin, IH, Liu, S, Thall, PF Using data augmentation to facilitate conduct of phase III clinical trials with delayed outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 525–536. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. | Riviere, MK, Yuan, Y, Dubois, F A Bayesian dose finding design for clinical trials combining a cytotoxic agent with a molecularly targeted agent. J R Stat Soc C 2014; 64: 215–229. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 14. | O’Quigley, J, Pepe, M, Fisher, L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46: 33–48. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 15. | Chevret, S . The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Stat Med 1993; 12: 1093–1108. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 16. | Liu, S, Ning, J. Bayesian dose-finding design for drug combination trials with delayed toxicities. Bayesian Anal 2013; 8: 703–722. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 17. | Yuan, Y, Yin, G. Robust EM continual reassessment method in oncology dose finding. J Am Stat Assoc 2011; 106: 818–831. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 18. | Cheung, YK, Chappell, R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56: 1177–1182. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 19. | Cheung, YK, Thall, PF. Monitoring the rates of composite events with censored data in phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 2002; 58: 89–97. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 20. | Thompson, WR . On the Likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika 1933; 25: 285–294. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 21. | Robbins, H . Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bull Am Math Soc 1952; 58: 527–535. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 22. | Gittins, JC . Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices. JRSS Series B 1979; 41: 148–177. Google Scholar |
| 23. | Azriel, D, Mandel, M, Rinott, Y. The treatment versus experimentation dilemma in dose-finding studies. J Stat Plann Infer 2011; 141: 2759–2768. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 24. | Thall, PF, Nguyen, HQ. Adaptive randomization to improve utility-based dose-finding with bivariate ordinal outcomes. J Biopharm Stat 2012; 22: 785–801. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 25. | Oron, AP, Hoff, PD. Small-sample behavior of novel phase I cancer trial designs. Clin Trials 2013; 10: 63–80. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 26. | Berry, DA, Eick, SG. Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Stat Med 1995; 14: 231–246. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 27. | Sutton, RS, Barto, AG. Reinforcement learning: an introduction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. Google Scholar |
| 28. | Villar, SS, Bowden, J, Wason, J. Multi-armed bandit models for the optimal design of clinical trials: benefits and challenges. Stat Sci 2015; 30: 199–215. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 29. | Thall, PF, Simon, R. Practical Bayesian guidelines for phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics 1994; 50: 337–349. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 30. | Thall, PF, Millikan, RE, Mueller, P Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 2003; 59: 487–496. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 31. | Yuan, Y, Yin, G. Bayesian dose-finding by jointly modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. JRSS 2009; 58: 719–736. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 32. | Yin, G, Yuan, Y. Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression. JRSS 2009; 58: 211–224. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 33. | Yin, G, Yuan, Y. A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 2009; 65: 866–875. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 34. | Storer, BE . Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45: 925–937. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 35. | Korn, EL, Midthune, D, Chen, TT A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med 1994; 13: 1799–1806. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 36. | Ivanova, A, Montazer-Haghighi, A, Mohanty, SG Improved up-and-down designs for phase I trials. Stat Med 2003; 22: 69–82. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 37. | Ivanova, A, Wang, K. A non-parametric approach to the design and analysis of two-dimensional dose-finding trials. Stat Med 2004; 23: 1861–1870. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 38. | Thall, PF, Cook, JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60: 684–693. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 39. | Jiang, F, Jack Lee, J, Muller, P. A Bayesian decision-theoretic sequential response-adaptive randomization design. Stat Med 2013; 32: 1975–1994. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 40. | Audibert JY, Bubeck S and Munos R. Best arm identification in multi-armed bandits. In: Proceedings of the 23th annual conference on computational learning theory, Hafa, Israel, June 2010. Google Scholar |
| 41. | Kalyanakrishnan, S, Tewari, A, Auer, P PAC subset selection in stochastic multi-armed bandits. In: Langford, J, Pineau, J (eds). Proceedings of the 29th international conference on machine learning (ICML), New York, NY: Omnipress, 2012, pp. 655–662. Google Scholar |
