Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase I cancer trials

Enhancement of Bayesian optimal interval design by accounting for overdose and underdose errors trade-offs

Model-assisted designs, a new class of dose-finding designs for determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), model only the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) data observed at the current dose based on a simple binomial model and offer the boundaries of DLT for the determination of dose escalation, retention, or de-escalation before beginning the trials. The boundaries for dose-escalation and de-escalation decisions are relevant to the operating characteristics of the design. The well-known model-assisted design, Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN), selects these boundaries to minimize the probability of incorrect decisions at each dose allocation but does not distinguish between overdose and underdose allocations caused by incorrect decisions when calculating the probability of incorrect decisions. Distinguishing between overdose and underdose based on the decision error in the BOIN design is expected to increase the accuracy of MTD determination. In this study, we extended the BOIN design to account for the decision probabilities of incorrect overdose and underdose allocations separately. To minimize the two probabilities simultaneously, we propose utilizing multiple objective optimizations and formulating an approach for determining the boundaries for dose escalation and de-escalation. Comprehensive simulation studies using fixed and randomly generated scenarios of DLT probability demonstrated that the proposed method is superior or comparable to existing interval designs, along with notably better operating characteristics of the proposed method.

A Bayesian adaptive design for dual-agent phase I-II oncology trials integrating efficacy data across stages

Combination of several anticancer treatments has typically been presumed to have enhanced drug activity. Motivated by a real clinical trial, this paper considers phase I-II dose finding designs for dual-agent combinations, where one main objective is to characterize both the toxicity and efficacy profiles. We propose a two-stage Bayesian adaptive design that accommodates a change of patient population in-between. In stage I, we estimate a maximum tolerated dose combination using the escalation with overdose control (EWOC) principle. This is followed by a stage II, conducted in a new yet relevant patient population, to find the most efficacious dose combination. We implement a robust Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model to allow sharing of information on the efficacy across stages, assuming that the related parameters are either exchangeable or nonexchangeable. Under the assumption of exchangeability, a random-effects distribution is specified for the main effects parameters to capture uncertainty about the between-stage differences. The inclusion of nonexchangeability assumption further enables that the stage-specific efficacy parameters have their own priors. The proposed methodology is assessed with an extensive simulation study. Our results suggest a general improvement of the operating characteristics for the efficacy assessment, under a conservative assumption about the exchangeability of the parameters a priori.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

BACKGROUND

Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE).

METHODS

The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar.

CONCLUSIONS

By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Modeling synergism in early phase cancer trials with drug combination with continuous dose levels: is there an added value?

In parametric Bayesian designs of early phase cancer clinical trials with drug combinations exploring a discrete set of partially ordered doses, several authors claimed that there is no added value in including an interaction term to model synergism between the two drugs. In this paper, we investigate these claims in the setting of continuous dose levels of the two agents. Parametric models will be used to describe the relationship between the doses of the two agents and the probability of dose limiting toxicity and efficacy. Trial design proceeds by treating cohorts of two patients simultaneously receiving different dose combinations and response adaptive randomization. We compare trial safety and efficiency of the estimated maximum tolerated dose (MTD) curve between models that include an interaction term with models without the synergism parameter with extensive simulations. Under a selected class of dose-toxicity models and dose escalation algorithm, we found that not including an interaction term in the model can compromise the safety of the trial and reduce the pointwise reliability of the estimated MTD curve.

Combining cytotoxic agents with continuous dose levels in seamless phase I-II clinical trials

Phase I-II cancer clinical trial designs are intended to accelerate drug development. In cases where efficacy cannot be ascertained in a short period of time, it is common to divide the study in two stages: i) a first stage in which dose is escalated based only on toxicity data and we look for the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) set and ii) a second stage in which we search for the most efficacious dose within the MTD set. Current available approaches in the area of continuous dose levels involve fixing the MTD after stage I and discarding all collected stage I efficacy data. However, this methodology is clearly inefficient when there is a unique patient population present across stages. In this article, we propose a two-stage design for the combination of two cytotoxic agents assuming a single patient population across the entire study. In stage I, conditional escalation with overdose control (EWOC) is used to allocate successive cohorts of patients. In stage II, we employ an adaptive randomization approach to allocate patients to drug combinations along the estimated MTD curve, which is constantly updated. The proposed methodology is assessed with extensive simulations in the context of a real case study.

Improving the performance of Bayesian logistic regression model with overdose control in oncology dose-finding studies

An accurately identified maximum tolerated dose (MTD) serves as the cornerstone of successful subsequent phases in oncology drug development. Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) is a popular and versatile model-based dose-finding design. However, BLRM with original overdose control strategy has been reported to be safe but "excessively conservative." In this article, we investigate the reason for conservativeness and point out that a major reason could be the lack of appropriate underdose control. We propose designs that balance overdose and underdose control to improve the performance over the original BLRM. Simulation results reveal that the new designs have better accuracy and treat more patients at MTD.

A nonparametric Bayesian method for dose finding in drug combinations cancer trials

We propose an adaptive design for early-phase drug-combination cancer trials with the goal of estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). A nonparametric Bayesian model, using beta priors truncated to the set of partially ordered dose combinations, is used to describe the probability of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose allocation between successive cohorts of patients is estimated using a modified continual reassessment scheme. The updated probabilities of DLT are calculated with a Gibbs sampler that employs a weighting mechanism to calibrate the influence of data vs the prior. At the end of the trial, we recommend one or more dose combinations as the MTD based on our proposed algorithm. We apply our method to a Phase I clinical trial of CB-839 and Gemcitabine that motivated this nonparametric design. The design operating characteristics indicate that our method is comparable with existing methods.

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs

Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical, and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory phase III studies.

Improving safety of the continual reassessment method via a modified allocation rule

This article proposes a novel criterion for the allocation of patients in phase I dose-escalation clinical trials, aiming to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Conventionally, using a model-based approach, the next patient is allocated to the dose with the toxicity estimate closest (in terms of the absolute or squared distance) to the maximum acceptable toxicity. This approach, however, ignores the uncertainty in point estimates and ethical concerns of assigning a lot of patients to overly toxic doses. In fact, balancing the trade-off between how accurately the MTD can be estimated and how many patients would experience adverse events is one of the primary challenges in phase I studies. Motivated by recent discussions in the theory of estimation in restricted parameter spaces, we propose a criterion that allows to balance these explicitly. The criterion requires a specification of one additional parameter only that has a simple and intuitive interpretation. We incorporate the proposed criterion into the one-parameter Bayesian continual reassessment method and show, using simulations, that it can result in similar accuracy on average as the original design, but with fewer toxic responses on average. A comparison with other model-based dose-escalation designs, such as escalation with overdose control and its modifications, demonstrates that the proposed design can result in either the same mean accuracy as alternatives but fewer toxic responses or in a higher mean accuracy but the same number of toxic responses. Therefore, the proposed design can provide a better trade-off between the accuracy and the number of patients experiencing adverse events, making the design a more ethical alternative over some of the existing methods for phase I trials.

A Bayesian seamless phase I-II trial design with two stages for cancer clinical trials with drug combinations

The use of drug combinations in clinical trials is increasingly common during the last years since a more favorable therapeutic response may be obtained by combining drugs. In phase I clinical trials, most of the existing methodology recommends a one unique dose combination as "optimal," which may result in a subsequent failed phase II clinical trial since other dose combinations may present higher treatment efficacy for the same level of toxicity. We are particularly interested in the setting where it is necessary to wait a few cycles of therapy to observe an efficacy outcome and the phase I and II population of patients are different with respect to treatment efficacy. Under these circumstances, it is common practice to implement two-stage designs where a set of maximum tolerated dose combinations is selected in a first stage, and then studied in a second stage for treatment efficacy. In this article we present a new two-stage design for early phase clinical trials with drug combinations. In the first stage, binary toxicity data is used to guide the dose escalation and set the maximum tolerated dose combinations. In the second stage, we take the set of maximum tolerated dose combinations recommended from the first stage, which remains fixed along the entire second stage, and through adaptive randomization, we allocate subsequent cohorts of patients in dose combinations that are likely to have high posterior median time to progression. The methodology is assessed with extensive simulations and exemplified with a real trial.

Proportional odds assumption for modeling longitudinal ordinal multiple toxicity outcomes in dose finding studies of targeted agents: A pooled analysis of 54 studies

BACKGROUND

Data generated by phase I trials is richer than the classical binary DLT measured at the first cycle used as primary endpoints. Several works developed designs for more informative endpoints, e.g. ordinal toxicity grades and/or longitudinal data which relied however on strong assumptions, in particular the proportional odds (PO) assumption.

METHODS

We evaluated this PO assumption for the dose and cycle on a large database of individual patient data from 54 phase I clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents. The PO model is a specific case of the continuation ratio logit model (CRLM) with null parameters. We compared the PO and CRLM models using the widely applicable information criterion (WAIC). We considered a longitudinal multivariate ordinal toxicity outcome (cutaneous, digestive, hematological, general disorders, and other toxicities).

RESULTS

WAIC suggested that the CRLM model (WAIC = 30911.58) outperformed the PO model (WAIC = 31432.10). Deviance from PO assumption for dose was observed for digestive and general disorder toxicities. There was moderate cycle effect with slight deviance from PO assumption for the other type of toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Designs based on PO for dose should be a useful tool for drug with low expected digestive or general disorder toxicity dose-related incidence.

Comparison between continuous and discrete doses for model based designs in cancer dose finding

Despite of an extensive statistical literature showing that discretizing continuous variables results in substantial loss of information, categorization of continuous variables has been a common practice in clinical research and in cancer dose finding (phase I) clinical trials. The objective of this study is to quantify the loss of information incurred by using a discrete set of doses to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in phase I trials, instead of a continuous dose support. Escalation With Overdose Control and Continuous Reassessment Method were used because they are model-based designs where dose can be specified either as continuous or as a set of discrete levels. Five equally spaced sets of doses with different interval lengths and three sample sizes with sixteen scenarios were evaluated to compare the operating characteristics between continuous and discrete dose designs by Monte Carlo simulation. Loss of information was quantified by safety and efficiency measures. We conclude that if there is insufficient knowledge about the true MTD value, as commonly happens in phase I clinical trials, a continuous dose scheme minimizes information loss. If one is required to implement a design using discrete doses, then a scheme with 9 to 11 doses may yield similar results to the continuous dose scheme.

Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase I cancer trials

Phase I trials of anti-cancer therapies aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as the dose that causes unacceptable toxicity in a target proportion of patients. Both rule-based and model-based methods have been proposed for MTD recommendation. The escalation with overdose control (EWOC) approach is a model-based design where the dose assigned to the next patient is one that, given all available data, has a posterior probability of exceeding the MTD equal to a pre-specified value known as the feasibility bound. The aim is to conservatively dose-escalate and approach the MTD, avoiding severe overdosing early on in a trial. The EWOC approach has been applied in practice with the feasibility bound either fixed or varying throughout a trial, yet some of the methods may recommend incoherent dose-escalation, that is, an increase in dose after observing severe toxicity at the current dose. We present examples where varying feasibility bounds have been used in practice, and propose a toxicity-dependent feasibility bound approach that guarantees coherent dose-escalation and incorporates the desirable features of other EWOC approaches. We show via detailed simulation studies that the toxicity-dependent feasibility bound approach provides improved MTD recommendation properties to the original EWOC approach for both discrete and continuous doses across most dose-toxicity scenarios, with comparable performance to other approaches without recommending incoherent dose escalation. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.