We present a model-free phase I/II clinical trial design, referred to as the UFO design, to optimize the dose of immunotherapy by jointly modeling toxicity, efficacy, and immune response outcomes. Instead of relying on complex parametric modeling approaches, we propose a model-free approach that uses the inherent correlations among different types of outcomes in immunotherapy and the constrained dose-outcome order to facilitate information sharing across different doses. This approach ensures the efficiency and transparency of the UFO design to be implemented in clinical practice. The UFO design is also extended to accommodate the delayed outcomes. It demonstrates favorable operating characteristics through simulation studies. The R Shniy app for simulation and trial implementation using the UFO design is also provided at iusccc.shinyapps.io/smartdesign.
TopalianSLWeinerGJPardollDM. Cancer immunotherapy comes of age. J Clin Oncol2011; 23: 4828–4836.
2.
MakkoukAWeinerGJ. Cancer immunotherapy and breaking immune tolerance: new approaches to an old challenge. Cancer Res2015; 75: 5–10.
3.
Couzin-FrankelJ. Cancer immunotherapy. Science2013; 324: 1432–1433.
4.
SynNLTengMWLMokTSK, et al.De-novo and acquired resistance to immune checkpoint targeting. Lancet Oncol2017; 18: 731–741.
5.
KhalilDNSmithELBrentjensRJ, et al.The future of cancer treatment: immunomodulation, CARs and combination immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2016; 13: 273–290.
6.
KornEL. Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst2004; 96: 977–978.
7.
ParulekarWREisenhauerEA. Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst2004; 96: 990–997.
8.
Postel-VinaySArkenauHTOlmosD, et al.Clinical benefit in phase I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: does dose matter?Br J Cancer2009; 100: 1373–1378.
9.
TourneauCLLeeJJSiuLL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 708–720.
10.
LoRussoPMBoernerSASeymourL. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res2010; 16: 1710–1718.
11.
KohrtHETumehPCBensonD, et al.Immunodynamics: a cancer immunotherapy trials network review of immune monitoring in immuno-oncology clinical trials. J Immunother Cancer2016; 4: 15.
12.
WagesNAChiuzanCPanageasKS. Design considerations for early-phase clinical trials of immune-oncology agents. J Immunother Cancer2018; 6: 81.
13.
LiuSGuoBYuanY. A Bayesian phase I/II design for immunotherapy trials. J Am Stat Assoc2018; 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. J R Stat Soc Ser C2019; 68: 411–425.
16.
GuoBGarrettELiuS. A Bayesian phase I/II design for cancer clinical trials combining an immunotherapeutic agent with a chemotherapeutic agent. J R Stat Soc Ser C2021; 70: 1210–1229.
17.
GuoBZangY. BIPSE: a biomarker-based phase I/II design for immunotherapy trials with progression-free survival endpoint. Stat Med2021; 41: 1205–1224.
18.
GuoBZangY. A Bayesian phase I/II biomarker-based design for identifying subgroup-specific optimal dose for immunotherapy. Stat Methods Med Res2022; 31: 1104–1119.
19.
HornLInfanteJRReckampKL, et al.Ensartinib (X-396) in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: results from a first-in-human phase I/II, multicenter study. Clin Cancer Res2018; 24: 2771–2779.
20.
LaubachJPLiuCJRajeNS, et al.A phase I/II study of evofosfamide, a hypoxia-activated prodrug with or without bortezomib in subjects with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 478–486.
21.
SchroederMAFialaMAHuseltonE, et al.A phase I/II trial of carfilzomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 3776–3783.
22.
LoweryMABradleyMChouJF, et al.Binimetinib plus gemcitabine and cisplatin phase I/II trial in patients with advanced biliary cancers. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 937–945.
23.
McMichaelELBennerBAtwalLS, et al.A phase I/II trial of cetuximabin combination with interleukin-12 administered to patients with unresectable primary or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 4955–4965.
24.
HaasNBApplemanLJSteinM, et al.Autophagy inhibition to augment mTOR inhibition: a phase I/II trial of everolimus and hydroxychloroquine in patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 2080–2087.
25.
SlovinSHussainSSaadF, et al.Pharmacodynamic and clinical results from a phase I/II study of the HSP90 inhibitor onalespib in combination with abiraterone acetate in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 4624–4633.
26.
AdvaniASCooperBVisconteV, et al.A phase I/II trial of MEC (mitoxantrone, etoposide, cytarabine) in combination with ixazomib for relapsed refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 4231–4237.
27.
ThomasRPNagpalSIvM, et al.Macrophage exclusion after radiation therapy (MERT): a first in human phase I/II trial using a CXCR4 inhibitor in glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res2019; 25: 6948–6957.
28.
MorandiFAiroldiIMarimpietriD, et al.CD38, a receptor with multifunctional activities: from modulatory functions on regulatory cell subsets and extracellular vesicles, to a target for therapeutic strategies. Cells2019; 8: 1–17.
29.
HorensteinALFainiACMorandiF, et al.The circular life of human CD38: from basic science to clinics and back. Molecules2020; 25: 1–16.
30.
LinPOwensRTricotG, et al.Flow cytometric immunophenotypic analysis of 306 cases of multiple myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol2004; 121: 482–488.
31.
MorandiFHorensteinALCostaF, et al.CD38: a target for immunotherapeutic approaches in multiple myeloma. Front Immunol2018; 9: 2722.
32.
WangXYuXLiW, et al.Expanding anti-CD38 immunotherapy for lymphoid malignancies. J Exp Clin Cancer Res2022; 41: 210.
33.
XiaQTakedaKYamaguchiY, et al.A generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization in immunotherapy. Pharm Stat2024; 23: 480–494.
34.
BarlowREBartholomewDJBremnerJM, et al.Statistical inference under order restrictions. London, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.
35.
IvanovaAFlournoyN. Comparison of isotonic designs for dose-finding. Stat Biopharm Res2009; 1: 101.
36.
GordonBRichardDCarolynP, et al.Isotonic regression in two independent variables. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat1984; 33: 352–357.
37.
ZhangLYuanY. A practical Bayesian design to identify the maximum tolerated dose contour for drug combination trials. Stat Med2016; 35: 4924–4936.
38.
HjortNLClaeskensG. Frequentist model average estimators. J Am Stat Assoc2003; 98: 879–899.
39.
BucklandSTBurnhamKPAugustinNH. Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics1997; 53: 603–618.
40.
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.
41.
LiuSYuanY. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat2015; 64: 507–523.
42.
YuanYYinG. Robust EM continual reassessment method in oncology dose finding. J Am Stat Assoc2011; 106: 818–831.
43.
LinRYuanY. Time-to-event model-assisted designs for dose-finding trials with delayed toxicity. Biostatistics2020; 21: 807–824.
44.
ThallPCookJ. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics2004; 60: 684–693.
45.
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.
46.
U.S. Food And Drug Administration. Project optimus: reforming the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 2022.
47.
U.S. Food And Drug Administration. Optimizing the dosage of human prescription drugs and biological products for the treatment of oncologic diseases. Rockville, MD: Foodand Drug Administration, 2023.
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.
