Immunotherapy is an innovative treatment that enlists the patient’s immune system to battle tumors. The optimal dose for treating patients with an immunotherapeutic agent may differ according to their biomarker status. In this article, we propose a biomarker-based phase I/II dose-finding design for identifying subgroup-specific optimal dose for immunotherapy (BSOI) that jointly models the immune response, toxicity, and efficacy outcomes. We propose parsimonious yet flexible models to borrow information across different types of outcomes and subgroups. We quantify the desirability of the dose using a utility function and adopt a two-stage dose-finding algorithm to find the optimal dose for each subgroup. Simulation studies show that the BSOI design has desirable operating characteristics in selecting the subgroup-specific optimal doses and allocating patients to those optimal doses, and outperforms conventional designs.
Couzin-FrankelJ. Cancer immunotherapy. Science2013; 324: 1432–1433.
2.
TopalianSLWeinerGJPardollDM. Cancer immunotherapy comes of age. J Clin Oncol2011; 23: 4828–4836.
3.
MakkoukAWeinerGJ. Cancer immunotherapy and breaking immune tolerance: New approaches to an old challenge. Cancer Res2015; 75: 5–10.
4.
HodiFSO’DaySJMcDermottDF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med2010; 363: 711–723.
5.
BorghaeiHPaz-AresLHornL, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med2015; 373: 1627–1639.
6.
ReckMRodriguez-AbreuDRobinsonAG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med2016; 375: 1823–1833.
7.
ThallPRussellK. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Stat Med1998; 27: 4895–4913.
8.
ThallPCookJ. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics2004; 60: 684–693.
9.
YinGLiYJiY. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics2006; 62: 777–784.
10.
JinILiuSThallP, et al. Using data augmentation to facilitate conduct of phase I/II clinical trials with delayed outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc2014; 109: 525–536.
11.
ZangYLeeJJ. A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials. Stat Med2017; 36: 27–42.
12.
GuoBYuanY. Bayesian phase I/II biomarker-based dose finding for precision medicine with molecularly targeted agents. J Am Stat Assoc2017; 112: 508–520.
13.
LiuSGuoBYuanY. A Bayesian phase I/II design for immunotherapy trials. J Am Stat Assoc2017; 113: 1016–1027.
14.
GuoBLiDYuanY. SPIRIT: A seamless phase I/II randomized design for immunotherapy trials. Pharm Stat2018; 17: 527–540.
15.
GuoBParkYLiuS. Utility-based Bayesian phase I/II design for immunotherapy trials with progression-free survival endpoint. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C2019; 68: 411–425.
16.
GuoBGarrettELiuS. A Bayesian phase I/II design for cancer clinical trials combining an immunotherapeutic agent with a chemotherapeutic agent. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C2021; (70): 1210–1229.
17.
ZhongWKoopmeinersJCarlinB. A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy. Stat Med2012; 31: 3885–3895.
18.
TopalianSHodiFBrahmerJ, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med2012; 366: 2443–2454.
19.
ManhoneyKMAtkinsMB. Prognostic and predictive markers for the new immunotherapies. Oncology2014; 28: 39–48.
20.
GaronEBRizviNAHuiR, et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med2015; 372: 2018–2028.
21.
LarkinJChiarion-SileniVGonzlesR, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med2015; 373: 23–34.
22.
AguiarPSantoroSTadokoroH, et al. The role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis. Immunotherapy2016; 8: 479–488.
23.
BaiRLvZXuD, et al. Predictive biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Biomark Res2020; 8: 8–34.
24.
KugelCHDouglassSMWebsterMR, et al. Age correlates with response to anti-PD1, relfecting age-related differences in intratumoral effector and regulatory T-cell populations. Clin Cancer Res2018; 24: 5347–5356.
25.
NishijimaTFMussHBShacharSS, et al. Comparison of efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between younger and older patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treatment Review2016; 45: 30–37.
26.
FelipEArdizzoniACiuleanuT, et al. CheckMate 171: A phase 2 trial of nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer, including ECOG PS 2 and elderly population. Eur J Cancer2020; 127: 160–172.
27.
MurphyWJLongoDL. The surprisingly strong association between obesity and cancer immunotherapy efficacy. JAMA2019; 321: 1247–1248.
28.
WangZAguilarEGLunaJI, et al. Paradoxical effects of obesity on T-cell function during tumor progressin and PD-1 checkpoint blockade. Nat Med2019; 25: 141–151.
29.
PatnaikAKangSPRascoD, et al. Phase I study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475; anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res2015; 21: 4286–4293.
30.
RobertCRibasAWolchokJD, et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: A randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet2014; 384: 1109–1117.
31.
RibasAPuzanovIDummerR, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigatorchoice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol2015; 16: 908–918.
32.
ChatterjeeMTurnerDCFelipE, et al. Systematic evaluation of pembrolizumab dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol2016; 27: 1291–1298.
33.
HerbstRSBaasPKimDW, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet2016; 387: 1540–1550.
34.
GoldsteinDGordonNDavidescuM, et al. A phamacoeconomic analysis of personalized dosing vs fixed dosing of pembrolizumab in firstline PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2017; 109: djx063.
35.
Ingles GarcesAAuLMasonR, et al. Building on the anti-PD1/PD-L1 backbone: Combination immunotherapy for cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs2019; 28: 695–708.
36.
CaiCYuanYJiY. A Bayesian dose finding design for oncology clinical trials of combinational biological agents. Appl Stat2014; 63: 159–173.
37.
RobertCCasellaG. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
38.
GelmanAJakulinAPittauMG, et al. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Ann Appl Stat2008; 2: 1360–1383.
39.
ThallPNguyen. Adaptive randomization to improve utility-based dose-finding with bivariate ordinal outcomes. J Biopharm Stat2012; 22: 785–801.
40.
O’QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46: 33–48.
41.
LiuSYinGYuanY. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. Annals of Applied Statistics2013; 4: 2138–2156.
42.
ZhangYZangY. CWL: A conditional weighted likelihood method to account for the delayed joint toxicity-efficacy outcomes for phase I/II clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res2021; 30: 892–903.
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.
