A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II clinical trial design with late‐onset competing risk outcomes

Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

Dose optimization for cancer treatments with considerations for late-onset toxicities

Given that novel anticancer therapies have different toxicity profiles and mechanisms of action, it is important to reconsider the current approaches for dose selection. In an effort to move away from considering the maximum tolerated dose as the optimal dose, the Food and Drug Administration Project Optimus points to the need of incorporating long-term toxicity evaluation, given that many of these novel agents lead to late-onset or cumulative toxicities and there are no guidelines on how to handle them. Numerous methods have been proposed to handle late-onset toxicities in dose-finding clinical trials. A summary and comparison of these methods are provided. Moreover, using PI3K inhibitors as a case study, we show how late-onset toxicity can be integrated into the dose-optimization strategy using current available approaches. We illustrate a re-design of this trial to compare the approach to those that only consider early toxicity outcomes and disregard late-onset toxicities. We also provide proposals going forward for dose optimization in early development of novel anticancer agents with considerations for late-onset toxicities.

A generalized phase 1-2-3 design integrating dose optimization with confirmatory treatment comparison

A generalized phase 1-2-3 design, Gen 1-2-3, that includes all phases of clinical treatment evaluation is proposed. The design extends and modifies the design of Chapple and Thall (2019), denoted by CT. Both designs begin with a phase 1-2 trial including dose acceptability and optimality criteria, and both select an optimal dose for phase 3. The Gen 1-2-3 design has the following key differences. In stage 1, it uses phase 1-2 criteria to identify a set of candidate doses rather than 1 dose. In stage 2, which is intermediate between phase 1-2 and phase 3, it randomizes additional patients fairly among the candidate doses and an active control treatment arm and uses survival time data from both stage 1 and stage 2 patients to select an optimal dose. It then makes a Go/No Go decision of whether or not to conduct phase 3 based on the predictive probability that the selected optimal dose will provide a specified substantive improvement in survival time over the control. A simulation study shows that the Gen 1-2-3 design has desirable operating characteristics compared to the CT design and 2 conventional designs.

A Bayesian adaptive biomarker stratified phase II randomized clinical trial design for radiotherapies with competing risk survival outcomes

In recent decades, many phase II clinical trials have used survival outcomes as the primary endpoints. If radiotherapy is involved, the competing risk issue often arises because the time to disease progression can be censored by the time to normal tissue complications, and vice versa. Besides, many existing research has examined that patients receiving the same radiotherapy dose may yield distinct responses due to their heterogeneous radiation susceptibility statuses. Therefore, the "one-size-fits-all" strategy often fails, and it is more relevant to evaluate the subgroup-specific treatment effect with the subgroup defined by the radiation susceptibility status. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian adaptive biomarker stratified phase II trial design evaluating the subgroup-specific treatment effects of radiotherapy. We use the cause-specific hazard approach to model the competing risk survival outcomes. We propose restricting the candidate radiation doses based on each patient's radiation susceptibility status. Only the clinically feasible personalized dose will be considered, which enhances the benefit for the patients in the trial. In addition, we propose a stratified Bayesian adaptive randomization scheme such that more patients will be randomized to the dose reporting more favorable survival outcomes. Numerical studies and an illustrative trial example have shown that the proposed design performed well and outperformed the conventional design ignoring the competing risk issue.

Time-to-event calibration-free odds design: A robust efficient design for phase I trials with late-onset outcomes

Compared with most of the existing phase I designs, the recently proposed calibration-free odds (CFO) design has been demonstrated to be robust, model-free, and easy to use in practice. However, the original CFO design cannot handle late-onset toxicities, which have been commonly encountered in phase I oncology dose-finding trials with targeted agents or immunotherapies. To account for late-onset outcomes, we extend the CFO design to its time-to-event (TITE) version, which inherits the calibration-free and model-free properties. One salient feature of CFO-type designs is to adopt game theory by competing three doses at a time, including the current dose and the two neighboring doses, while interval-based designs only use the data at the current dose and is thus less efficient. We conduct comprehensive numerical studies for the TITE-CFO design under both fixed and randomly generated scenarios. TITE-CFO shows robust and efficient performances compared with interval-based and model-based counterparts. As a conclusion, the TITE-CFO design provides robust, efficient, and easy-to-use alternatives for phase I trials when the toxicity outcome is late-onset.

Generalized phase I-II designs to increase long term therapeutic success rate

Designs for early phase dose finding clinical trials typically are either phase I based on toxicity, or phase I-II based on toxicity and efficacy. These designs rely on the implicit assumption that the dose of an experimental agent chosen using these short-term outcomes will maximize the agent's long-term therapeutic success rate. In many clinical settings, this assumption is not true. A dose selected in an early phase oncology trial may give suboptimal progression-free survival or overall survival time, often due to a high rate of relapse following response. To address this problem, a new family of Bayesian generalized phase I-II designs is proposed. First, a conventional phase I-II design based on short-term outcomes is used to identify a set of candidate doses, rather than selecting one dose. Additional patients then are randomized among the candidates, patients are followed for a predefined longer time period, and a final dose is selected to maximize the long-term therapeutic success rate, defined in terms of duration of response. Dose-specific sample sizes in the randomization are determined adaptively to obtain a desired level of selection reliability. The design was motivated by a phase I-II trial to find an optimal dose of natural killer cells as targeted immunotherapy for recurrent or treatment-resistant B-cell hematologic malignancies. A simulation study shows that, under a range of scenarios in the context of this trial, the proposed design has much better performance than two conventional phase I-II designs.

Modified isotonic regression based phase I/II clinical trial design identifying optimal biological dose

Conventional phase I/II clinical trial designs often use complicated parametric models to characterize the dose-response relationships and conduct the trials. However, the parametric models are hard to justify in practice, and the misspecification of parametric models can lead to substantially undesirable performances in phase I/II trials. Moreover, it is difficult for the physicians conducting phase I/II trials to clinically interpret the parameters of these complicated models, and such significant learning costs impede the translation of novel statistical designs into practical trial implementation. To solve these issues, we propose a transparent and efficient phase I/II clinical trial design, referred to as the modified isotonic regression-based design (mISO), to identify the optimal biological doses for molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy. The mISO design makes no parametric model assumptions on the dose-response relationship and yields desirable performances under any clinically meaningful dose-response curves. The concise, clinically interpretable dose-response models and dose-finding algorithm make the proposed designs highly translational from the statistical community to the clinical community. We further extend the mISO design and develop the mISO-B design to handle the delayed outcomes. Our comprehensive simulation studies show that the mISO and mISO-B designs are highly efficient in optimal biological dose selection and patients allocation and outperform many existing phase I/II clinical trial designs. We also provide a trial example to illustrate the practical implementation of the proposed designs. The software for simulation and trial implementation are available for free download.

Surv-CRM-12: A Bayesian phase I/II survival CRM for right-censored toxicity endpoints with competing disease progression

The growing interest in new classes of anti-cancer agents, such as molecularly-targeted therapies and immunotherapies with modes of action different from those of cytotoxic chemotherapies, has changed the dose-finding paradigm. In this setting, the observation of late-onset toxicity endpoints may be precluded by treatment and trial discontinuation due to disease progression, defining a competing event to toxicity. Trial designs where dose-finding is modeled in the framework of a survival competing risks model appear particularly well-suited. We aim to provide a phase I/II dose-finding design that allows dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) outcomes to be delayed or unobserved due to competing progression within the possibly long observation window. The proposed design named the Survival-continual reassessment method-12, uses survival models for right-censored DLT and progression endpoints. In this competing risks framework, cause-specific hazards for DLT and progression-free of DLT were considered, with model parameters estimated using Bayesian inference. It aims to identify the optimal dose (OD), by minimizing the cumulative incidence of disease progression, given an acceptable toxicity threshold. In a simulation study, design operating characteristics were evaluated and compared to the TITE-BOIN-ET design and a nonparametric benchmark approach. The performance of the proposed method was consistent with the complexity of scenarios as assessed by the nonparametric benchmark. We found that the proposed design presents satisfying operating characteristics in selecting the OD and safety.

Dosing Regimens of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Attempts at Lower Dose, Less Frequency, Shorter Course

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a revolutionary breakthrough in the field of cancer by modulating patient's own immune system to exert anti-tumor effects. The clinical application of ICIs is still in its infancy, and their dosing regimens need to be continuously adjusted. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies showed a significant plateau in the exposure-response curve, with high receptor occupancy and plasma concentrations achieved at low dose levels. Coupled with concerns about drug toxicity and heavy economic costs, there has been an ongoing quest to reevaluate the current ICI dosing regimens while preserving maximum clinical efficacy. Many clinical data showed remarkable anticancer effects with ICIs at the doses far below the approved regimens, indicating the possibility of dose reduction. Our review attempts to summarize the clinical evidence for ICIs regimens with lower-dose, less-frequency, shorter-course, and provide clues for further ICIs regimen optimization.

gBOIN-ET: The generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for optimal dose-finding accounting for ordinal graded efficacy and toxicity in early clinical trials

One of the primary objectives of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecular targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. These new therapeutic agents appear more likely to induce multiple low- or moderate-grade toxicities than dose-limiting toxicities. Besides, efficacy should be evaluated as an overall response and stable disease in solid tumors and the difference between complete remission and partial remission in lymphoma. This paper proposes the generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for dose-finding accounting for efficacy and toxicity grades. The new design, named "gBOIN-ET" design, is model-assisted, simple, and straightforward to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials than model-based approaches. These characteristics are quite valuable in practice. A simulation study shows that the gBOIN-ET design has advantages compared with the other model-assisted designs in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across various realistic settings.

SCI: A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II dose-finding design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials

An immunotherapy trial often uses the phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose, which monitors the efficacy and toxicity outcomes simultaneously in a single trial. The progression‐free survival rate is often used as the efficacy outcome in phase I/II immunotherapy trials. As a result, patients developing disease progression in phase I/II immunotherapy trials are generally seriously ill and are often treated off the trial for ethical consideration. Consequently, the happening of disease progression will terminate the toxicity event but not vice versa, so the issue of the semi‐competing risks arises. Moreover, this issue can become more intractable with the late‐onset outcomes, which happens when a relatively long follow‐up time is required to ascertain progression‐free survival. This paper proposes a novel Bayesian adaptive phase I/II design accounting for semi‐competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials, referred to as the dose‐finding design accounting for semi‐competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials (SCI) design. To tackle the issue of the semi‐competing risks in the presence of late‐onset outcomes, we re‐construct the likelihood function based on each patient's actual follow‐up time and develop a data augmentation method to efficiently draw posterior samples from a series of Beta‐binomial distributions. We propose a concise curve‐free dose‐finding algorithm to adaptively identify the optimal biological dose using accumulated data without making any parametric dose–response assumptions. Numerical studies show that the proposed SCI design yields good operating characteristics in dose selection, patient allocation, and trial duration.

Seamless phase I/II design for novel anticancer agents with competing disease progression

Molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies have prolonged administration and complicated toxicity and efficacy profiles requiring longer toxicity observation windows and the inclusion of efficacy information to identify the optimal dose. Methods have been proposed to either jointly model toxicity and efficacy, or for prolonged observation windows. However, it is inappropriate to address these issues individually in the setting of dose-finding because longer toxicity windows increase the risk of patients experiencing disease progression and discontinuing the trial, with progression defining a competing event to toxicity, and progression-free survival being a commonly used efficacy endpoint. No method has been proposed to address this issue in a competing risk framework. We propose a seamless phase I/II design, namely the competing risks continual reassessment method (CR-CRM). Given an observation window, the objective is to recommend doses that minimize the progression probability, among a set of tolerable doses in terms of toxicity risk. In toxicity-centered stage of the design, doses are assigned based on toxicity alone, and in optimization stage of the design, doses are assigned integrating both toxicity and progression information. Design operating characteristics were examined in a simulation study compared with benchmark performances, including sensitivity to time-varying hazards and correlated events. The method performs well in selecting doses with acceptable toxicity risk and minimum progression risk across a wide range of scenarios.

Is more better? An analysis of toxicity and response outcomes from dose-finding clinical trials in cancer

BACKGROUND

The overwhelming majority of dose-escalation clinical trials use methods that seek a maximum tolerable dose, including rule-based methods like the 3+3, and model-based methods like CRM and EWOC. These methods assume that the incidences of efficacy and toxicity always increase as dose is increased. This assumption is widely accepted with cytotoxic therapies. In recent decades, however, the search for novel cancer treatments has broadened, increasingly focusing on inhibitors and antibodies. The rationale that higher doses are always associated with superior efficacy is less clear for these types of therapies.

METHODS

We extracted dose-level efficacy and toxicity outcomes from 115 manuscripts reporting dose-finding clinical trials in cancer between 2008 and 2014. We analysed the outcomes from each manuscript using flexible non-linear regression models to investigate the evidence supporting the monotonic efficacy and toxicity assumptions.

RESULTS

We found that the monotonic toxicity assumption was well-supported across most treatment classes and disease areas. In contrast, we found very little evidence supporting the monotonic efficacy assumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusion is that dose-escalation trials routinely use methods whose assumptions are violated by the outcomes observed. As a consequence, dose-finding trials risk recommending unjustifiably high doses that may be harmful to patients. We recommend that trialists consider experimental designs that allow toxicity and efficacy outcomes to jointly determine the doses given to patients and recommended for further study.