Background The rolling six design (RSD) is currently being used by the Children’s
Oncology Group (COG) as their standard design for Phase I trials. Because the COG has
large multi-center trials with fast accrual, the motivation for adopting the RSD is
to hasten accrual and shorten the duration of their trials. However, trial suspension
due to completion of follow-up still cannot be entirely avoided by the RSD.
Therefore, a design that allows continuous enrollment of patients throughout the
entire trial is needed.
Purpose To demonstrate the superior performance of the Time-to-Event Continual
Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) with continuous patient recruitment relative to the
RSD, in terms of identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and reducing exposure
of patients to toxic doses.
Methods Using scenarios that were based on an actual pediatric Phase I trial at the
University of Michigan, Monte Carlo simulations were used to investigate the
operational characteristics of RSD and TITE-CRM.
Results The TITE-CRM treated all available patients, identified the MTD more
accurately than the RSD and did not increase the probability of exposing patients to
toxic doses.
Limitations Both the TITE-CRM and RSD assume that the probability of dose limiting
toxicity increases with higher dose level.
Conclusions The TITE-CRM, which allows for continual enrollment of patients, provides a
safe design for pediatric oncology Phase I trials with better accuracy than the
RSD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DixonWJMoodAM. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity
data. J Am Stat Assoc1948; 43:
109–26.
2.
IvanovaA. Escalation, group and A + B designs for dose-finding
trials. Stat Med2006; 25:
3668–78.
3.
LinYShihWJ. Statistical properties of the traditional
algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials.
Biostatistics2001; 2:
203–15.
4.
SkolnikJMBarrettJSJayaramanB. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials:
the rolling six designs. J Clin Oncol2008; 26:
190–95.
O’QuigleyJPepeMFisherL. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for
phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46:
33–48.
7.
Garrett-MayerE. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding
studies: a tutorial. Clin Trails2006; 3:
57–71.
8.
FariesD. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment
method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm
Stat1994; 4:
147–64.
9.
GoodmanSNZahurakMLPiantadosiS. Some practical improvements in the continual
reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med1995; 14:
1149–61.
10.
AhnC. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial
designs. Stat Med1998; 17:
1537–49.
11.
StorerBE. An evaluation of Phase I clinical trial designs in
the continuous dose-response setting. Stat Med2001; 20:
2399–408.
12.
KornEMidthuneDChenT. A comparison of two phase I trial
designs. Stat Med1994; 13:
1799–806.
13.
OnarAKocakMBoyettJM. Continual reassessment method vs traditional
empirically-based design: modifications motivated by phase I trials in pediatric
oncology by the pediatric brain tumor consortium. J
Biopharm Stat2009; 19:
437–55.
14.
CheungKChappellR. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with
late-onset toxicities. Biometrics2000; 56:
1177–82.
15.
PaolettiXKramarA. A comparison of model choices for the continual
reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Stat
Med2009; 28:
3012–28.
16.
ShenLO'QuigleyJO. Consistency of continual reassessment method under
model misspecification. Biometrika1996; 83:
395–405.
17.
BraunT. Generalizing the TITE-CRM to adapt for early- and
late-onset toxicities. Stat Med2005; 25:
2071–83.
18.
MulerJHMcGinnCJNormolleD. Phase I trial using a time-to-event continual
reassessment strategy for dose escalation of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine
and radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer. J Clin
Oncol2004; 22:
238–43.
19.
de LimaMGiraltSThallPF. Maintenance therapy with low-dose azacitidine after
allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsed AML or MDS: a dose
and schedule finding study. J Clin Oncol2010; 116:
5320–31.
20.
NormolleDLawrenceT. Designing dose escalation trials with late onset
toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method.
J Clin Oncol2006; 24:
4426–33.
21.
Onar-ThomasAXiongZ. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional
method, rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment
method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric phase I oncology
trials. Contemp Clin Trails2010; 31:
259–70.
