Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

As our understanding of the etiology and mechanisms of cancer becomes more sophisticated and the number of therapeutic options increases, phase I oncology trials today have multiple primary objectives. Many such designs are now “seamless,” meaning that the trial estimates both the maximum tolerated dose and the efficacy at this dose level. Sponsors often proceed with further study only with this additional efficacy evidence. However, with this increasing complexity in trial design, it becomes challenging to articulate fundamental operating characteristics of these trials, such as (1) what is the probability that the design will identify an acceptable, that is., safe and efficacious, dose level? or (2) how many patients will be assigned to an acceptable dose level on average?

Methods:

In this manuscript, we propose a new modular framework for designing and evaluating seamless oncology trials. Each module is comprised of either a dose assignment step or a dose-response evaluation, and multiple such modules can be implemented sequentially. We develop modules from existing phase I/II designs as well as a novel module for evaluating dose-response using a Bayesian isotonic regression scheme.

Results:

We also demonstrate a freely available R package called seamlesssim to numerically estimate, by means of simulation, the operating characteristics of these modular trials.

Conclusions:

Together, this design framework and its accompanying simulator allow the clinical trialist to compare multiple different candidate designs, more rigorously assess performance, better justify sample sizes, and ultimately select a higher quality design.

Keywords

Phase I phase II dose escalation recommended phase II dose

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Prowell

Theoret

Pazdur

. Seamless oncology-drug development. N Engl J Med 2016; 374(21): 2001–2003.

Manji

Brana

Amir

, et al. Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(33): 4260–4267.

Rogatko

Schoeneck

Jonas

, et al. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(31): 4982–4986.

Garrett-Mayer

O’Connell

. Chapter 3: the evolution of phase I trials, past, present, and future: a biostatistical perspective. In Kummar

Takimoto

(Eds) Novel designs of early phase trials for cancer therapeutics. London: Academic Press, 2018, pp. 17–30.

Storer

. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45(3): 925–937.

O’Quigley

Pepe

Fisher

. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46(1): 33–48.

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015, URLhttps://www.R-project.org/

Wickham

Averick

Bryan

, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 2019; 4(43): 1686.

Stan Development Team. RStan: the R interface to Stan (R package version 2.18.2), 2018, http://mc-stan.org/

10.

Cheung

. dfcrm: Dose-finding by the continual reassessment method (R package version 0.2-2), 2013, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dfcrm

11.

Chase

Boonstra

. seamlesssim: simulates seamless phase I/II oncology trials (R package version 0.0.0.9000), 2020, https://github.com/elizabethchase/seamlesssim (accessed 17 September 2020).

12.

Braun

. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23(3): 240–256.

13.

Thall

Cook

. Dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60(3): 684–693.

14.

Zhang

Sargent

Mandrekar

. An adaptive dosefinding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 2006; 25(14): 2365–2383.

15.

Dragalin

Fedorov

. Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity response. J Stat Plan Inference 2006; 136(6): 1800–1823.

16.

Yin

. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 2006; 62(3): 777–784.

17.

Wang

Day

. Adaptive Bayesian design for phase I dose-finding trials using a joint model of response and toxicity. J Biopharm Stat 2009; 20(1): 125–144.

18.

Houede

Thall

Nguyen

, et al. Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials. Biometrics 2010; 66(2): 532–540.

19.

Thall

Szabo

Nguyen

, et al. Optimizing the concentration and bolus of a drug delivered by continuous infusion. Biometrics 2011; 67(4): 1638–1646.

20.

Zhong

Koopmeiners

Carlin

. A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy. Stat Med 2012; 31(29): 3885–3895.

21.

Thall

Nguyen

. Adaptive randomization to improve utility-based dose-finding with bivariate ordinal outcomes. J Biopharm Stat 2012; 22(4): 785–801.

22.

Tao

Liu

, et al. Dose-finding based on bivariate efficacy-toxicity outcome using archimedean copula. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(11): e78805.

23.

Wages

Conaway

. Phase I/II adaptive design for drug combination oncology trials. Stat Med 2014; 33(12): 1990–2003.

24.

Pan

Xie

Liu

, et al. A phase I/II seamless dose escalation/expansion with adaptive randomization scheme (sears). Clin Trials 2014; 11(1): 49–59.

25.

Guo

. Bayesian dose-finding designs for combination of molecularly targeted agents assuming partial stochastic ordering. Stat Med 2015; 34(5): 859–875.

26.

Dutton

Love

Billingham

, et al. Analysis of phase II methodologies for single-arm clinical trials with multiple endpoints in rare cancers: an example in Ewing’s sarcoma. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27(5): 1451–1463.

27.

Msaouel

Thall

Yuan

, et al. A phase I/II trial of sitravatinib (sitra) combined with nivolumab (nivo) in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell cancer (ACCRCC) that progressed on prior VEGF-targeted therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38(6): 612.

28.

Copland

Slade

Byrne

, et al. FLAG-IDA and ponatinib in patients with blast phase chronic myeloid leukaemia: results from the phase I/II UK trials acceleration programme matchpoint trial. Blood 2019; 134: 497.

29.

Hansen

Abdul-Karim

Rizvi

, et al. A phase I/II, open-label, two part study of GSK3359609 in combination with tremelimumab in participants with selected, advanced solid tumors. In: AACR Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 29 March–3 April 2019.

30.

Iasonos

O’Quigley

. Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(31): 4014–4021.

31.

Boonstra

Shen

Taylor

JMG

, et al. A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107(3): dju429.

32.

Boonstra

Braun

Taylor

JMG

, et al. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II–efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(7): 1427–1435.

33.

Hobbs

Barata

Kanjanapan

, et al. Seamless designs: current practice and considerations for early-phase drug development in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111(2): 118–128.

34.

Patnaik

Kang

Rasco

, et al. Phase I study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475; Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:4286–4293.

35.

Kang

Gergich

Lubiniecki

, et al. Pembrolizumab KEYNOTE-001: an adaptive study leading to accelerated approval for two indications and a companion diagnostic. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(6): 1388–1398.

36.

Mullard

. Reining in the supersized Phase I cancer trial. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2016; 15(6): 371–373.

37.

Wong

Siah

. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2019; 20(2): 273–286.

38.

Hay

Thomas

Craighead

, et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 2014; 32(1): 40–51.

39.

Food Drug Administration. Expansion cohorts: use in first-in-human clinical trials to expedite development of oncology drugs and biologics guidance for industry draft guidance, 2018, https://www.fda.gov/media/115172/download (accessed 31 May 2019).

40.

Simon

. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1989; 10(1): 1–10.

41.

Garrett-Mayer

. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials 2006; 3(1): 57–71.

42.

A’Hern

. Sample size tables for exact single-stage phase ii designs. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20(6): 859–866.

43.

Wilson

. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1927; 22(158): 209–212.

44.

Mayo

Gajewski

. Bayesian sample size calculations in phase ii clinical trials using informative conjugate priors. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25(2): 157–167.

45.

Barlow

. Statistical inference under order restrictions; the theory and application of isotonic regression (Technical report). New York: Wiley, 1972.

46.

Boonstra

Chase

. Simulation study instructions, 2020, https://github.com/psboonstra/simulations_seamlesssim (accessed 17 September 2020.

47.

Cheung

Chappell

. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56(4): 1177–1182.

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.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

0.88 MB

A modular framework for early-phase seamless oncology trials

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material