For novel molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies, the objective of dose-finding is often to identify the optimal biological dose, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, optimal biological doses may not be the same for different indications, challenging the traditional dose-finding framework. Therefore, we proposed a Bayesian phase I/II basket trial design, named “shotgun-2,” to identify indication-specific optimal biological doses. A dose-escalation part is conducted in stage I to identify the maximum tolerated dose and admissible dose sets. In stage II, dose optimization is performed incorporating both toxicity and efficacy for each indication. Simulation studies under both fixed and random scenarios show that, compared with the traditional “phase I + cohort expansion” design, the shotgun-2 design is robust and can improve the probability of correctly selecting the optimal biological doses. Furthermore, this study provides a useful tool for identifying indication-specific optimal biological doses and accelerating drug development.
FDA. Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry. 2018.
2.
GainorJFCuriglianoGKimDW, et al.Pralsetinib for RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study. Lancet Oncol2021; 22: 959–969.
3.
SubbiahVHuMIWirthLJ, et al.Pralsetinib for patients with advanced or metastatic RET-altered thyroid cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, registrational, phase 1/2 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol2021; 9: 491–501.
4.
BardiaAMayerIAVahdatLT, et al.Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy in refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med2019; 380: 741–751.
5.
BardiaAMessersmithWAKioEA, et al.Sacituzumab govitecan, a Trop-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate, for patients with epithelial cancer: final safety and efficacy results from the phase I/II IMMU-132-01 basket trial. Ann Oncol2021; 32: 746–756.
6.
RosenbergJSridharSSZhangJ, et al.EV-101: a phase I study of single-agent enfortumab vedotin in patients with nectin-4-positive solid tumors, including metastatic urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol2020; 38: 1041–1049.
7.
ShitaraKIwataHTakahashiS, et al.Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201a) in patients with advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer: a dose-expansion, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol2019; 20: 827–836.
8.
TamuraKTsurutaniJTakahashiS, et al.Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201a) in patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine: a dose-expansion, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol2019; 20: 816–826.
9.
JiangLLiRYanF, et al.Shotgun: a Bayesian seamless phase I-II design to accelerate the development of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Contemp Clin Trials2021; 104: 106338.
10.
RichardsonGEParkJJBoyerMJ, et al.IMPRINTER: an open label, multicenter, dose escalation/expansion, phase 1 study of imu-201 (PD1-Vaxx), a B-cell immunotherapy as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab, in adults with non-small cell lung cancer (IMU.201.101). 2022; 40: e21134–e21134.
11.
Gomez-RocaCAItalianoALe TourneauC, et al.Phase I study of emactuzumab single agent or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors reveals depletion of immunosuppressive M2-like macrophages. Ann Oncol2019; 30: 1381–1392.
12.
ThallPFCookJD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics2004; 60: 684–693.
13.
RiviereMKYuanYJourdanJH, et al.Phase I/II dose-finding design for molecularly targeted agent: plateau determination using adaptive randomization. Stat Methods Med Res2018; 27: 466–479.
14.
ZangYLeeJJYuanY. Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents. Clin Trials2014; 11: 319–327.
15.
LinRYinGShiH. Bayesian adaptive model selection design for optimal biological dose finding in phase I/II clinical trials. Biostatistics2021. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxab028.
16.
MuenzDGTaylorJMGBraunTM. Phase I-II trial design for biologic agents using conditional auto-regressive models for toxicity and efficacy. J R Stat Soc C-Appl2019; 68: 331–345.
17.
WagesNATaitC. Seamless phase I/II adaptive design for oncology trials of molecularly targeted agents. J Biopharm Stat2015; 25: 903–920.
18.
YinGSLiYSJiY. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics2006; 62: 777–784.
19.
TakedaKTaguriMMoritaS. BOIN-ET: Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Pharm Stat2018; 17: 383–395.
20.
YinJYuanY. Checkerboard: a Bayesian efficacy and toxicity interval design for phase I/II dose-finding trials. J Biopharm Stat2020; 30: 1006–1025.
21.
ZhouYLeeJJYuanY. A utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose for targeted and immune therapies. Stat Med2019; 38: 5299–5316.
22.
LinRZhouYYanF, et al.BOIN12: Bayesian optimal interval phase I/II trial design for utility-based dose finding in immunotherapy and targeted therapies. JCO Precis Oncol2020; 4: 1393–1402. DOI: 10.1200/PO.20.00257.
23.
ThallPFWathenJKBekeleBN, et al.Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to phase II trials in diseases with multiple subtypes. Stat Med2003; 22: 763–780.
24.
BerrySMBroglioKRGroshenS, et al.Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: efficient designs of phase II oncology clinical trials. Clin Trials2013; 10: 720–734.
25.
LiuRLiuZGhadessiM, et al.Increasing the efficiency of oncology basket trials using a Bayesian approach. Contemp Clin Trials2017; 63: 67–72.
26.
NeuenschwanderBWandelSRoychoudhuryS, et al.Robust exchangeability designs for early phase clinical trials with multiple strata. Pharm Stat2016; 15: 123–134.
27.
ChuYYYuanY. A Bayesian basket trial design using a calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model. Clinical Trials2018; 15: 149–158.
28.
HobbsBPLandinR. Bayesian basket trial design with exchangeability monitoring. Stat Med2018; 37: 3557–3572.
29.
ChuYYYuanY. BLAST: Bayesian latent subgroup design for basket trials accounting for patient heterogeneity. J R Stat Soc C-Appl2018; 67: 723–740.
30.
ChenNLeeJJ. Bayesian hierarchical classification and information sharing for clinical trials with subgroups and binary outcomes. Biom J2019; 61: 1219–1231.
31.
ChenNLeeJJ. Bayesian cluster hierarchical model for subgroup borrowing in the design and analysis of basket trials with binary endpoints. Stat Methods Med Res2020; 29: 2717–2732.
32.
JiangLNieLYanF, et al.Optimal Bayesian hierarchical model to accelerate the development of tissue-agnostic drugs and basket trials. Contemp Clin Trials2021; 107: 106460.
33.
LiMLiuRLinJ, et al.Bayesian semi-parametric design (BSD) for adaptive dose-finding with multiple strata. J Biopharm Stat2020; 30: 806–820.
34.
LinRThallPFYuanY. An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes. Biometrics2020; 76: 304–315.
35.
LinRThallPFYuanY. A phase I-II basket trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes based on delayed outcomes. Bayesian Anal2021; 16: 179–202.
36.
LeeJThallPFMsaouelP. Precision Bayesian phase I-II dose-finding based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups. Stat Med2021; 40: 5199–5217.
37.
StorerBE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics1989; 45: 925–937.
38.
O'QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46: 33–48.
39.
LiuSYYuanY. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials. J R Stat Soc C-Appl2015; 64: 507–523.
40.
YanFMandrekarSJYuanY. Keyboard: a novel Bayesian toxicity probability interval design for phase I clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res2017; 23: 3994–4003.
41.
YuanYHessKRHilsenbeckSG, et al.Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res2016; 22: 4291–4301.
42.
ZhouHMurrayTAPanH, et al.Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials. Stat Med2018; 37: 2208–2222.
43.
ZhouHYuanYNieL. Accuracy, safety, and reliability of novel phase I trial designs. Clin Cancer Res2018; 24: 4357–4364.
44.
HymanDMPuzanovISubbiahV, et al.Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med2015; 373: 726–736.
45.
ThallPFNguyenHQ. Adaptive randomization to improve utility-based dose-finding with bivariate ordinal outcomes. J Biopharm Stat2012; 22: 785–801.
46.
LiuSGuoBYuanY. A Bayesian phase I/II trial design for immunotherapy. J Am Stat Assoc2018; 113: 1016–1027.
47.
BorcomanENandikollaALongG, et al.Patterns of response and progression to immunotherapy. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book2018; 38: 169–178.
48.
de MiguelMCalvoE. Clinical challenges of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Cell2020; 38: 326–333.
49.
DromainCBeigelmanCPozzessereC, et al.Imaging of tumour response to immunotherapy. Eur Radiol Exp2020; 4: 2.
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.
