A Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to incorporate preclinical information into phase I oncology trials

Bayesian framework for multi-source data integration-Application to human extrapolation from preclinical studies

In preclinical investigations, for example, in in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies, the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and toxicological characteristics of a drug are evaluated before advancing to first-in-man trial. Usually, each study is analyzed independently and the human dose range does not leverage the knowledge gained from all studies. Taking into account all preclinical data through inferential procedures can be particularly interesting in obtaining a more precise and reliable starting dose and dose range. Our objective is to propose a Bayesian framework for multi-source data integration, customizable, and tailored to the specific research question. We focused on preclinical results extrapolated to humans, which allowed us to predict the quantities of interest (e.g. maximum tolerated dose, etc.) in humans. We build an approach, divided into four steps, based on a sequential parameter estimation for each study, extrapolation to human, commensurability checking between posterior distributions and final information merging to increase the precision of estimation. The new framework is evaluated via an extensive simulation study, based on a real-life example in oncology. Our approach allows us to better use all the information compared to a standard framework, reducing uncertainty in the predictions and potentially leading to a more efficient dose selection.

A comparison of Bayesian information borrowing methods in basket trials and a novel proposal of modified exchangeability-nonexchangeability method

Recent innovation in trial design to improve study efficiency has led to the development of basket trials in which a single therapeutic treatment is tested on several patient populations, each of which forms a basket. In a common setting, patients across all baskets share a genetic marker and as such, an assumption can be made that all patients may have a homogeneous response to treatments. Bayesian information borrowing procedures utilize this assumption to draw on information regarding the response in one basket when estimating the response rate in others. This can improve power and precision of estimates particularly in the presence of small sample sizes, however, can come at a cost of biased estimates and an inflation of error rates, bringing into question validity of trial conclusions. We review and compare the performance of several Bayesian borrowing methods, namely: the Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM), calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model (CBHM), exchangeability-nonexchangeability (EXNEX) model and a Bayesian model averaging procedure. A generalization of the CBHM is made to account for unequal sample sizes across baskets. We also propose a modification of the EXNEX model that allows for better control of a type I error. The proposed method uses a data-driven approach to account for the homogeneity of the response data, measured through Hellinger distances. Through an extensive simulation study motivated by a real basket trial, for both equal and unequal sample sizes across baskets, we show that in the presence of a basket with a heterogeneous response, unlike the other methods discussed, this model can control type I error rates to a nominal level whilst yielding improved power.

Bayesian sample size determination using commensurate priors to leverage preexperimental data

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.

A dose-finding design for dual-agent trials with patient-specific doses for one agent with application to an opiate detoxification trial

There is a growing interest in early phase dose-finding clinical trials studying combinations of several treatments. While the majority of dose finding designs for such setting were proposed for oncology trials, the corresponding designs are also essential in other therapeutic areas. Furthermore, there is increased recognition of recommending the patient-specific doses/combinations, rather than a single target one that would be recommended to all patients in later phases regardless of their characteristics. In this paper, we propose a dose-finding design for a dual-agent combination trial motivated by an opiate detoxification trial. The distinguishing feature of the trial is that the (continuous) dose of one compound is defined externally by the clinicians and is individual for every patient. The objective of the trial is to define the dosing function that for each patient would recommend the optimal dosage of the second compound. Via a simulation study, we have found that the proposed design results in high accuracy of individual dose recommendation and is robust to the model misspecification and assumptions on the distribution of externally defined doses.

Estimating Similarity of Dose-Response Relationships in Phase I Clinical Trials-Case Study in Bridging Data Package

Bridging studies are designed to fill the gap between two populations in terms of clinical trial data, such as toxicity, efficacy, comorbidities and doses. According to ICH-E5 guidelines, clinical data can be extrapolated from one region to another if dose–reponse curves are similar between two populations. For instance, in Japan, Phase I clinical trials are often repeated due to this physiological/metabolic paradigm: the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for Japanese patients is assumed to be lower than that for Caucasian patients, but not necessarily for all molecules. Therefore, proposing a statistical tool evaluating the similarity between two populations dose–response curves is of most interest. The aim of our work is to propose several indicators to evaluate the distance and the similarity of dose–toxicity curves and MTD distributions at the end of some of the Phase I trials, conducted on two populations or regions. For this purpose, we extended and adapted the commensurability criterion, initially proposed by Ollier et al. (2019), in the setting of completed phase I clinical trials. We evaluated their performance using three synthetic sets, built as examples, and six case studies found in the literature. Visualization plots and guidelines on the way to interpret the results are proposed.

Bridging across patient subgroups in phase I oncology trials that incorporate animal data

In this paper, we develop a general Bayesian hierarchical model for bridging across patient subgroups in phase I oncology trials, for which preliminary information about the dose-toxicity relationship can be drawn from animal studies. Parameters that re-scale the doses to adjust for intrinsic differences in toxicity, either between animals and humans or between human subgroups, are introduced to each dose-toxicity model. Appropriate priors are specified for these scaling parameters, which capture the magnitude of uncertainty surrounding the animal-to-human translation and bridging assumption. After mapping data onto a common, 'average' human dosing scale, human dose-toxicity parameters are assumed to be exchangeable either with the standardised, animal study-specific parameters, or between themselves across human subgroups. Random-effects distributions are distinguished by different covariance matrices that reflect the between-study heterogeneity in animals and humans. Possibility of non-exchangeability is allowed to avoid inferences for extreme subgroups being overly influenced by their complementary data. We illustrate the proposed approach with hypothetical examples, and use simulation to compare the operating characteristics of trials analysed using our Bayesian model with several alternatives. Numerical results show that the proposed approach yields robust inferences, even when data from multiple sources are inconsistent and/or the bridging assumptions are incorrect.