A Bayesian adaptive Phase I–II clinical trial for evaluating efficacy and toxicity with delayed outcomes

Abstract

Background

In traditional Phase-I oncology trials, the safety of a new chemotherapeutic agent is tested in a dose escalation study to identify the maximum tolerated dose, which is defined as the highest dose with acceptable toxicity. An alternate approach is to jointly model toxicity and efficacy and allow dose finding to be directed by a prespecified trade-off between efficacy and toxicity. With this goal in mind, several designs have been proposed to jointly model toxicity and efficacy in a Phase I–II dose escalation study. A factor limiting the use of these designs is that toxicity and efficacy must be observed in a timely manner.

Purpose

One approach to overcoming this problem is to model toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. This would allow new subjects to be enrolled before full information is available for previous subjects while incorporating partial information when adaptively assigning new subjects to a dose level.

Methods

We propose a Phase I–II dose escalation study for evaluating toxicity and efficacy with delayed outcomes by jointly modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. We apply our proposed design to a Phase I–II clinical trial of a novel targeted toxin for canine hemangiosarcoma.

Results

Our simulation results show that our design identifies the optimal dose at a similar rate to dose finding that treats toxicity and efficacy as binary outcomes, but with substantial savings in study duration.

Limitations

Our proposed design has acceptable operating characteristics and dramatically reduces the trial duration compared to a design that considers toxicity and efficacy as binary outcomes, but comes at the cost of enrolling additional subjects when all dose levels are unacceptable.

Conclusions

We developed a novel Phase I–II design that accounts for delayed outcomes by modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. Our design has similar operating characteristics to efficacy/toxicity trade-off designs that consider efficacy and toxicity as binary outcomes, but with a dramatically shorter study duration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Storer

. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45(3): 925–37.

O’Quigley

Pepe

Fisher

. Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46(1): 33–48.

Goodman

Zahurak

Piantadosi

. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1995; 14(11): 1149–61.

Braun

. The bivariate continual reassessment method: Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23(3): 240–56.

Thall

Cook

. Dose-finding based on efficacy/toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60(3): 684–93.

Zhang

Sargent

Mandrekar

. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 2006; 25(14): 2365–83.

Vail

. Veterinary co-operative oncology group common terminology criteria for adverse events (vcog-ctcae) following chemotherapy or biological antineoplastic therapy in dogs and cats v1.0. Vet Comp Oncol 2004; 2(4): 195–213.

Helfand

. Canine hemangiosarcoma: A tumor of contemporary interest. Cancer Ther 2008; 6: 457–62.

Cheung

Chappell

. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56(4): 1177–82.

10.

Braun

. Generalizing the TITE-CRM to adapt for early- and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med 2006; 25(12): 2071–83.

11.

Thall

Lee

Tseng

C-H

Estey

. Accrual strategies for phase I trials with delayed patient outcome. Stat Med 1999; 18(10): 1155–69.

12.

Bekele

Shen

Thall

. Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks. Biostatistics 2008; 9(3): 442–57.

13.

Murtaugh

Fisher

. Bivariate binary models of efficacy and toxicity in dose-ranging trials. Commun Stat: Theory M 1990; 19(6): 2003–20.

14.

Yin

. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 2006; 62(3): 777–87.

15.

Clifford

Mackin

Henry

. Treatment of canine hemangiosarcoma: 2000 and beyond. J Vet Intern Med 2000; 14(5): 479–85.

16.

Lana

U’ren

Plaza

. Continuous low-dose oral chemotherapy for adjuvant therapy of splenic hemangiosarcoma in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2007; 21(4): 764–69.

17.

Chon

McCartan

Kubicek

Vail

. Safety evaluation of combination toceranib phosphate (Palladia^®) and piroxicam in tumour-bearing dogs (excluding mast cell tumours): A phase I dose-finding study. Vet Comp Oncol 2012; 10(3): 184–93.

18.

Tamburini

Phang

Fosmire

. Gene expression profiling identifies inflammation and angiogenesis as distinguishing features of canine hemangiosarcoma. BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 619.

19.

Polley

M-YC

. Practical modifications to the time-to-event continual reassessment method for phase I cancer trials with fast patient accrual and late-onset toxicities. Stat Med 2011; 30(17): 2130–43.