![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Background Most of the current designs used for Phase I dose finding trials in oncology will either involve only a single cytotoxic agent or will impose some implicit ordering among the doses. The goal of the studies is to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A key working assumption of these methods is the monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve.
Purpose Here we consider situations in which the monotonicity assumption may fail. These studies are becoming increasingly common in practice, most notably, in phase I trials that involve combinations of agents. Our focus is on studies where there exist pairs of treatment combinations for which the ordering of the probabilities of a dose-limiting toxicity cannot be known a priori.
Methods We describe a new dose-finding design which can be used for multiple-drug trials and can be applied to this kind of problem. Our methods proceed by laying out all possible orderings of toxicity probabilities that are consistent with the known orderings among treatment combinations and allowing the continual reassessment method (CRM) to provide efficient estimates of the MTD within these orders. The design can be seen to simplify to the CRM when the full ordering is known.
Results We study the properties of the design via simulations that provide comparisons to the Bayesian approach to partial orders (POCRM) of Wages, Conaway, and O'Quigley. The POCRM was shown to perform well when compared to other suggested methods for partial orders. Therefore, we comapre our approach to it in order to assess the performance of the new design.
Limitations A limitation concerns the number of possible orders. There are dose-finding studies with combinations of agents that can lead to a large number of possible orders. In this case, it may not be feasible to work with all possible orders.
Conclusions The proposed design demonstrates the ability to effectively estimate MTD combinations in partially ordered dosefinding studies. Because it relaxes the monotonicity assumption, it can be considered a multivariate generalization of the CRM. Hence, it can serve as a link between single and multiple-agent dosefinding trials.
References
| 1. |
Robertson, T, Wright, F, Dykstra, R. Order Restricted Statistical Inference John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988. Google Scholar |
| 2. |
Dunbar, S, Conaway, M, Peddada, S. On improved estimation of parameters subject to order restrictions. Stat Appl 2001; 3: 121–28. Google Scholar |
| 3. |
Hwang, J, Peddada, S. Confidence interval estimation subject to order restrictions. Ann Stat 1994; 22: 67–93. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 4. |
O'Quigley, J, Pepe, M, Fisher, L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for Phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46: 33–48. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 5. |
O'Quigley, J, Shen, LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52: 163–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 6. |
Babb, J, Rogatko, A, Zacks, S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998; 17: 1103–20. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 7. |
Kramar, A, Lebecq, A, Candalh, E. Continual reassessment methods in phase I trials of the combination of two agents in oncology. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1849–64. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. |
Iasonos, A, Wilton, A, Riedel, E. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials 2008; 5: 465–77. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 9. |
Wang, K, Ivanova, A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics 2005; 61: 217–22. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 10. |
Yin, G, Yuan, Y. Bayesian dose finding for drug combinations by copula regression. J Roy Stat Soc C Appl 2009; 581: 211–24. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 11. |
Yin, G, Yuan, Y. A latent contingency table approach to dose-finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 2009; 65: 866–75. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 12. |
Wages, NA, Conaway, MR, O'Quigley, J. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering. Biometrics 2011 ; 67, doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01560.x. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. |
Conaway, M, Dunbar, S, Peddada, S. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics 2004; 60: 661–69. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. |
O'Quigley, J, Paoletti, X, Maccario, J. Non-parametric optimal design in dose-finding studies. Biostatistics 2002; 3: 51–56. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 15. |
Lokich, J . Phase I clinical trial of weekly combined topotecan and irinotecan. Am J Clin Oncol 2001; 24: 336–40. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 16. |
Lee, SM, Cheung, YK. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials 2009; 6: 227–38. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 17. |
Cheung, YK, Chappell, R. A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method. Biometrics 2002; 58: 671–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
