Background In phase I cancer clinical trials, adjustment for patient differences in toxicity susceptibility can be carried out with stratification into risk groups. Separate trials conducted for each risk group can lead to conflicting decisions, in which higher doses are recommended for higher risk groups. Designs which covariate adjust often require assumptions that clinicians may be uncomfortable with.
Methods We extend up-and-down designs, isotonic designs and the continual reassessment method (CRM) to multiple risk groups with two-way isotonic regression. The only assumption about the groups is that they can be ordered according to their toxicity risk. The first two extensions, in particular, are nonparametric and easy for clinicians to understand.
Results Simulations were based on an ongoing helical tomotherapy trial. Seven different toxicity scenarios were considered. The proposed methods compared favorably to a covariate adjusted CRM. The extended up-and-down designs inherited the conservativeness from the original designs.
Conclusion Our experience demonstrates that the escalation rules of multiple risk groups can be linked, without a parametric assumption about the group toxicity curve, to borrow strength and to ensure nonconflicting dosage recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Rosenberger WF, Haines LM. Competing designs of phase I clinical trials. Stat Med2002; 21: 2757–2770.
2.
2. Mehta M, Scrimger R, Mackie R, Paliwal B, Chappell R, Fowler J. A new approach to dose escalation in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys2001; 49: 23–33.
3.
3. Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escaltion studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med1996; 15: 1605–1618.
4.
4. Chevret S. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I cancer clinical trials: a simulation study. Stat Med1993; 12: 1093–1108.
5.
5. Goodman S, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med1995; 14: 1149–1161.
6.
6. Storer BE. Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics1989; 45: 925–937.
7.
7. Leung DHY, Wang YG. Isotonic designs for phase I trials. Control Clin Trials2001; 22: 126–138.
8.
8. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for Phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46: 33–48.
10. Babb S, Rogatko A. Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase I clinical trial. Stat Med2001; 20: 2079–2090.
11.
11. Wijesinha MC, Piantadosi S. Dose-response models with covariates. Biometrics1995; 51: 977–987.
12.
12. Ratain MJ, Rosemarie M, Janisch L et al. Individualized dosing of amonafide based on a pharmacodynamic model incorporating acetylator phenotype and gender. Pharmacogenetics1996; 6: 93–101.
13.
13. Legedza ATR, Ibrahim JG. Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method. Stat Med2001; 20: 867–882.
14.
14. Cheng J, Babb JS, Langer C et al. Individualized patient dosing in phase I clinical trials: the role of escalation with overdose control in PNU-214936. J Clin Oncol2004; 2: 602–609.
15.
15. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med1998; 17: 1103–1120.
18. Robertson T, Wright FT, Dykstra RL. Order restricted statistical inference. New York: John-Wiley and Sons, 1988.
19.
19. O'Quigley J, Chevret S. Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: a review of results of a monte carlo study. Stat Med1991; 10: 1647–1664.
