Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-2
An adaptive design for the identification of the optimal dose using joint modeling of continuous repeated biomarker measurements and time-to-toxicity in phase I/II clinical trials in oncology
We present a new adaptive dose-finding method, based on a joint modeling of longitudinal continuous biomarker activity measurements and time to first dose limiting toxicity, with a shared random effect. Estimation relies on likelihood that does not require approximation, an important property in the context of small sample sizes, typical of phase I/II trials. We address the important case of missing at random data that stem from unacceptable toxicity, lack of activity and rapid deterioration of phase I patients. The objective is to determine the lowest dose within a range of highly active doses, under the constraint of not exceeding the maximum tolerated dose. The maximum tolerated dose is associated to some cumulative risk of dose limiting toxicity over a predefined number of treatment cycles. Operating characteristics are explored via simulations in various scenarios.
Le TourneauCLeeJJSiuLL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 708–720.
2.
Postel-VinaySGomez-RocaCMolifeLR, et al.Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities?. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 1728–1735.
3.
ChampiatSLambotteOBarreauE, et al.Management of immune checkpoint blockade dysimmune toxicities: a collaborative position paper. Ann Oncol2016; 27: 559–574.
4.
KummarSGutierrezMDoroshowJH, et al.Drug development in oncology: classical cytotoxics and molecularly targeted agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol2006; 62: 15–26.
5.
O'QuigleyJHughesMDFentonT. Dose-finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics2001; 57: 1018–1029.
6.
ThallPFCookJD. Dose-finding based on efficacy – toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics2004; 60: 684–693.
7.
ZhangWSargentDJMandrekarS. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med2006; 25: 2365–2383.
ZangYLeeJJYuanY. Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. Clin Trials2015; 11: 319–327.
11.
RiviereMKYuanYJourdanJH, et al.Phase I/II dose-finding design for molecularly targeted agent: plateau determination using adaptive randomization. Stat Meth Med Res2016, pp. 1–16. http://smm.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0962280216631763 (accessed 16 January 2019).
12.
ZangYLeeJJ. A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials. Stat Med2017; 36: 27–42.
13.
HsiHBartonCActonG, et al.Trends in the characteristics, dose-limiting toxicities and efficacy of phase I oncology trials: The Cancer Research UK experience. Eur J Cancer2016; 66: 9–16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.004 (accessed 29 January 2019).
14.
BekeleBNShenY. A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics2005; 61: 344–354.
15.
HirakawaA. An adaptive dose-finding approach for correlated bivariate binary and continuous outcomes in phase I oncology trials. Stat Med2012; 31: 516–532.
16.
YeungWYWhiteheadJReignerB, et al.Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation procedures for binary and continuous responses utilizing a gain function. Pharmaceut Stat2015; 14: 479–487.
17.
YeungWYReignerBBeyerU, et al.Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy. Pharmaceut Stat2017, pp. 1–18. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pst.1818 (accessed 16 January 2019).
18.
YuanYYinG. Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. J Royal Stat Soc2009; 58: 719–736.
19.
KoopmeinersJSModianoJ. A Bayesian adaptive phase I–II clinical trial for evaluating efficacy and toxicity with delayed outcomes. Clin Trials2014; 11: 38–48.
20.
JinIHLiuSThallPF, et al.Using data augmentation to facilitate conduct of phase I–II clinical trials with delayed outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc2014; 109: 525–536.
21.
Guo B and Yuan Y. A Bayesian dose-finding design for phase I/II clinical trials with non-ignorable dropouts. Statistics in Medicine 2016; 34: 1721–1732.
22.
Postel-VinaySColletteLPaolettiX, et al.Towards new methods for the determination of dose limiting toxicities and the assessment of the recommended dose for further studies of molecularly targeted agents – Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-led study. Eur J Cancer2014; 50: 2040–2049. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.031 (accessed 9 October 2018).
23.
RustinGJSVergoteIEisenhauerE, et al.Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer2011; 21: 419–423.
24.
ZhouCClampABackenA, et al.Systematic analysis of circulating soluble angiogenesis-associated proteins in ICON7 identifies Tie2 as a biomarker of vascular progression on bevacizumab. Br J Cancer2016; 115: 228–235.
25.
Rizopoulos D. Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data with applications in R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series, 2012.
26.
O'QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46: 33–48.
27.
RouanetAHelmerCDartiguesJF, et al.Interpretation of mixed models and marginal models with cohort attrition due to death and drop-out. Stat Meth Med Res2017; 28: 343–356. .
28.
ArnoldBC. Flexible univariate and multivariate models based on hidden truncation. J Stat Plan Inference2009; 139: 3741–3749.
29.
BarrettJDigglePHendersonR, et al.Joint modelling of repeated measurements and time-to-event outcomes: Flexible model specification and exact likelihood inference. J Royal Stat Soc Series B: Stat Methodol2015; 77: 131–148.
30.
O'QuigleyJShenLZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics1996; 52: 673–684.
31.
SinclairKWhiteheadA. A Bayesian approach to dose-finding studies for cancer therapies: Incorporating later cycles of therapy. Stat Med2014; 33: 2665–2680.
32.
IvanovaAQaqishBFSchellMJ. Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase II trials in oncology. Biometrics2005; 61: 540–545.
33.
McCullochCENeuhausJMOlinRL. Biased and unbiased estimation in longitudinal studies with informative visit processes. Biometrics2016; 72: 1315–1324.
34.
JakiTAndréVSuTl, et al.Designing exploratory cancer trials using change in tumour size as primary endpoint. Statistics in Med2013; 32: 2544–2554.
35.
LinCjWasonJMS. Improving phase II oncology trials using best observed RECIST response as an endpoint by modelling continuous tumour measurements. Stat Med2017; 36: 4616–4626.
36.
WasonJMSJakiT. A review of statistical designs for improving the efficiency of phase II studies in oncology. Stat Meth Med Res2016; 25: 1010–1021. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.004.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
