An information theoretic phase I-II design for molecularly targeted agents that does not require an assumption of monotonicity

A seamless Phase I/II platform design with a time-to-event efficacy endpoint for potential COVID-19 therapies

In the search for effective treatments for COVID-19, the initial emphasis has been on re-purposed treatments. To maximize the chances of finding successful treatments, novel treatments that have been developed for this disease in particular, are needed. In this article, we describe and evaluate the statistical design of the AGILE platform, an adaptive randomized seamless Phase I/II trial platform that seeks to quickly establish a safe range of doses and investigates treatments for potential efficacy. The bespoke Bayesian design (i) utilizes randomization during dose-finding, (ii) shares control arm information across the platform, and (iii) uses a time-to-event endpoint with a formal testing structure and error control for evaluation of potential efficacy. Both single-agent and combination treatments are considered. We find that the design can identify potential treatments that are safe and efficacious reliably with small to moderate sample sizes.

REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors

The rise of cutting-edge precision cancer treatments has led to a growing significance of the optimal biological dose (OBD) in modern oncology trials. These trials now prioritize the consideration of both toxicity and efficacy simultaneously when determining the most desirable dosage for treatment. Traditional approaches in early-phase oncology trials have conventionally relied on the assumption of a monotone relationship between treatment efficacy and dosage. However, this assumption may not hold valid for novel oncology therapies. In reality, the dose-efficacy curve of such treatments may reach a plateau at a specific dose, posing challenges for conventional methods in accurately identifying the OBD. Furthermore, achieving reliable identification of the OBD is typically not possible based on a single small-sample trial. With data from multiple phase I and phase I/II trials, we propose a novel Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis (REDOMA) approach to identify the OBD by synthesizing toxicity and efficacy data from each trial. The REDOMA method can address trials with heterogeneous characteristics. We adopt a curve-free approach based on a Gamma process prior to model the average dose-toxicity relationship. In addition, we utilize a Bayesian model selection framework that uses the spike-and-slab prior as an automatic variable selection technique to eliminate monotonic constraints on the dose-efficacy curve. The good performance of the REDOMA method is confirmed by extensive simulation studies.

A comparison of model-free phase I dose escalation designs for dual-agent combination therapies

It is increasingly common for therapies in oncology to be given in combination. In some cases, patients can benefit from the interaction between two drugs, although often at the risk of higher toxicity. A large number of designs to conduct phase I trials in this setting are available, where the objective is to select the maximum tolerated dose combination. Recently, a number of model-free (also called model-assisted) designs have provoked interest, providing several practical advantages over the more conventional approaches of rule-based or model-based designs. In this paper, we demonstrate a novel calibration procedure for model-free designs to determine their most desirable parameters. Under the calibration procedure, we compare the behaviour of model-free designs to model-based designs in a comprehensive simulation study, covering a number of clinically plausible scenarios. It is found that model-free designs are competitive with the model-based designs in terms of the proportion of correct selections of the maximum tolerated dose combination. However, there are a number of scenarios in which model-free designs offer a safer alternative. This is also illustrated in the application of the designs to a case study using data from a phase I oncology trial.

Response-adaptive randomization for multiarm clinical trials using context-dependent information measures

Theoretical-information approach applied to the clinical trial designs appeared to bring several advantages when tackling a problem of finding a balance between power and expected number of successes (ENS). In particular, it was shown that the built-in parameter of the weight function allows finding the desired trade-off between the statistical power and number of treated patients in the context of small population Phase II clinical trials. However, in real clinical trials, randomized designs are more preferable. The goal of this research is to introduce randomization to a deterministic entropy-based sequential trial procedure generalized to multiarm setting. Several methods of randomization applied to an entropy-based design are investigated in terms of statistical power and ENS. Namely, the four design types are considered: (a) deterministic procedures, (b) naive randomization using the inverse of entropy criteria as weights, (c) block randomization, and (d) randomized penalty parameter. The randomized entropy-based designs are compared to randomized Gittins index (GI) and fixed randomization (FR). After the comprehensive simulation study, the following conclusion on block randomization is made: for both entropy-based and GI-based block randomization designs the degree of randomization induced by forward-looking procedures is insufficient to achieve a decent statistical power. Therefore, we propose an adjustment for the forward-looking procedure that improves power with almost no cost in terms of ENS. In addition, the properties of randomization procedures based on randomly drawn penalty parameter are also thoroughly investigated.

Early phase clinical trials in oncology: Realising the potential of seamless designs

BACKGROUND

The pharmaceutical industry's productivity has been declining over the last two decades and high attrition rates and reduced regulatory approvals are being seen. The development of oncology drugs is particularly challenging with low rates of approval for novel treatments when compared with other therapeutic areas. Reliably establishing the potential of novel treatment and the corresponding optimal dosage is a key component to ensure efficient overall development. A growing interest lies in terminating developments of poor treatments quickly while enabling accelerated development for highly promising interventions.

METHODS

One approach to reliably establish the optimal dosage and the potential of a novel treatment and thereby improve efficiency in the drug development pathway is the use of novel statistical designs that make efficient use of the data collected.

RESULTS

In this paper, we discuss different (seamless) strategies for early oncology development and illustrate their strengths and weaknesses through real trial examples. We provide some directions for good practices in early oncology development, discuss frequently seen missed opportunities for improved efficiency and some future opportunities that have yet to fully develop their potential in early oncology treatment development.

DISCUSSION

Modern methods for dose-finding have the potential to shorten and improve dose-finding and only small changes to current approaches are required to realise this potential.

Practical implementation of the partial ordering continual reassessment method in a Phase I combination-schedule dose-finding trial

There is a growing medical interest in combining several agents and optimizing their dosing schedules in a single trial in order to optimize the treatment for patients. Evaluating at doses of several drugs and their scheduling in a single Phase I trial simultaneously possess a number of statistical challenges, and specialized methods to tackle these have been proposed in the literature. However, the uptake of these methods is slow and implementation examples of such advanced methods are still sparse to date. In this work, we share our experience of proposing a model-based partial ordering continual reassessment method (POCRM) design for three-dimensional dose-finding in an oncology trial. In the trial, doses of two agents and the dosing schedule of one of them can be escalated/de-escalated. We provide a step-by-step summary on how the POCRM design was implemented and communicated to the trial team. We proposed an approach to specify toxicity orderings and their a-priori probabilities, and developed a number of visualization tools to communicate the statistical properties of the design. The design evaluation included both a comprehensive simulation study and considerations of the individual trial behavior. The study is now enrolling patients. We hope that sharing our experience of the successful implementation of an advanced design in practice that went through evaluations of several health authorities will facilitate a better uptake of more efficient methods in practice.

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.

Response adaptive designs for Phase II trials with binary endpoint based on context-dependent information measures

In many rare disease Phase II clinical trials, two objectives are of interest to an investigator: maximising the statistical power and maximising the number of patients responding to the treatment. These two objectives are competing, therefore, clinical trial designs offering a balance between them are needed. Recently, it was argued that response-adaptive designs such as families of multi-arm bandit (MAB) methods could provide the means for achieving this balance. Furthermore, response-adaptive designs based on a concept of context-dependent (weighted) information criteria were recently proposed with a focus on Shannon's differential entropy. The information-theoretic designs based on the weighted Renyi, Tsallis and Fisher informations are also proposed. Due to built-in parameters of these novel designs, the balance between the statistical power and the number of patients that respond to the treatment can be tuned explicitly. The asymptotic properties of these measures are studied in order to construct intuitive criteria for arm selection. A comprehensive simulation study shows that using the exact criteria over asymptotic ones or using information measures with more parameters, namely Renyi and Tsallis entropies, brings no sufficient gain in terms of the power or proportion of patients allocated to superior treatments. The proposed designs based on information-theoretical criteria are compared to several alternative approaches. For example, via tuning of the built-in parameter, one can find designs with power comparable to the fixed equal randomisation's but a greater number of patients responded in the trials.

uTPI: A utility-based toxicity probability interval design for phase I/II dose-finding trials

Unlike chemotherapy, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy may not pose significant clinical benefit over the lower doses. By simultaneously considering both toxicity and efficacy endpoints, phase I/II trials can identify a more clinically meaningful dose for subsequent phase II trials than traditional toxicity-based phase I trials in terms of risk-benefit tradeoff. To strengthen and simplify the current practice of phase I/II trials, we propose a utility-based toxicity probability interval (uTPI) design for finding the optimal biological dose, based on a numerical utility that provides a clinically meaningful, one-dimensional summary representation of the patient's bivariate toxicity and efficacy outcome. The uTPI design does not rely on any parametric specification of the dose-response relationship, and it directly models the dose desirability through a quasi binomial likelihood. Toxicity probability intervals are used to screen out overly toxic dose levels, and then the dose escalation/de-escalation decisions are made adaptively by comparing the posterior desirability distributions of the adjacent levels of the current dose. The uTPI design is flexible in accommodating various dose desirability formulations, while only requiring minimum design parameters. It has a clear decision structure such that a dose-assignment decision table can be calculated before the trial starts and can be used throughout the trial, which simplifies the practical implementation of the design. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed uTPI design yields desirable as well as robust performance under various scenarios.

Early stopping in seamless phase I/II clinical trials

In recent years, seamless phase I/II clinical trials have drawn much attention, as they consider both toxicity and efficacy endpoints in finding an optimal dose (OD). Engaging an appropriate number of patients in a trial is a challenging task. This paper attempts a dynamic stopping rule to save resources in phase I/II trials. That is, the stopping rule aims to save patients from unnecessary toxic or subtherapeutic doses. We allow a trial to stop early when widths of the confidence intervals for the dose-response parameters become narrower or when the sample size is equal to a predefined size, whichever comes first. The simulation study of dose-response scenarios in various settings demonstrates that the proposed stopping rule can engage an appropriate number of patients. Therefore, we suggest its use in clinical trials.

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.

A surface-free design for phase I dual-agent combination trials

In oncology, there is a growing number of therapies given in combination. Recently, several dose-finding designs for Phase I dose-escalation trials for combinations were proposed. The majority of novel designs use a pre-specified parametric model restricting the search of the target combination to a surface of a particular form. In this work, we propose a novel model-free design for combination studies, which is based on the assumption of monotonicity within each agent only. Specifically, we parametrise the ratios between each neighbouring combination by independent Beta distributions. As a result, the design does not require the specification of any particular parametric model or knowledge about increasing orderings of toxicity. We compare the performance of the proposed design to the model-based continual reassessment method for partial ordering and to another model-free alternative, the product of independent beta design. In an extensive simulation study, we show that the proposed design leads to comparable or better proportions of correct selections of the target combination while leading to the same or fewer average number of toxic responses in a trial.

Clinical development of cell therapies for cancer: The regulators' perspective

Novel cell therapies for haematological malignancies and solid tumours address pressing clinical need while offering potentially paradigm shifts in efficacy. However, innovative development risks outflanking information on statutory frameworks, regulatory guidelines and their working application. Meeting this challenge, regulators offer wide-ranging expertise and experience in confidential scientific and regulatory advice. We advocate early incorporation of regulatory perspectives to support strategic development of clinical programmes. We examine critical issues and key advances in clinical oncology trials to highlight practical approaches to optimising the clinical development of cell therapies. We recommend early consideration of collaborative networks, early-access schemes, reducing bias in single-arm trials, adaptive trials, clinical end-points supporting risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses, companion diagnostics, real-world data and common technical issues. This symbiotic approach between developers and regulators should reduce development risk, safely expedite marketing authorisation, and promote early, wider availability of potentially transformative cell therapies for cancer.

A comparison of phase I dose-finding designs in clinical trials with monotonicity assumption violation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In oncology, new combined treatments make it difficult to order dose levels according to monotonically increasing toxicity. New flexible dose-finding designs that take into account uncertainty in dose levels ordering were compared with classical designs through simulations in the setting of the monotonicity assumption violation. We give recommendations for the choice of dose-finding design.

METHODS

Motivated by a clinical trial for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, we considered designs that require a monotonicity assumption, the Bayesian Continual Reassessment Method, the modified Toxicity Probability Interval, the Bayesian Optimal Interval design, and designs that relax monotonicity assumption, the Bayesian Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method and the No Monotonicity Assumption design. We considered 15 scenarios including monotonic and non-monotonic dose-toxicity relationships among six dose levels.

RESULTS

The No Monotonicity Assumption and Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method designs were robust to the violation of the monotonicity assumption. Under non-monotonic scenarios, the No Monotonicity Assumption design selected the correct dose level more often than alternative methods on average. Under the majority of monotonic scenarios, the Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method selected the correct dose level more often than the No Monotonicity Assumption design. Other designs were impacted by the violation of the monotonicity assumption with a proportion of correct selections below 20% in most scenarios. Under monotonic scenarios, the highest proportions of correct selections were achieved using the Continual Reassessment Method and the Bayesian Optimal Interval design (between 52.8% and 73.1%). The costs of relaxing the monotonicity assumption by the No Monotonicity Assumption design and Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method were decreases in the proportions of correct selections under monotonic scenarios ranging from 5.3% to 20.7% and from 1.4% to 16.1%, respectively, compared with the best performing design and were higher proportions of patients allocated to toxic dose levels during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative oncology treatments may no longer follow monotonic dose levels ordering which makes standard phase I methods fail. In such a setting, appropriate designs, as the No Monotonicity Assumption or Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method designs, should be used to safely determine recommended for phase II dose.

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 latent variable model for improving inference in trials assessing the effect of dose on toxicity and composite efficacy endpoints

It is often of interest to explore how dose affects the toxicity and efficacy properties of a novel treatment. In oncology, efficacy is often assessed through response, which is defined by a patient having no new tumour lesions and their tumour size shrinking by 30%. Usually response and toxicity are analysed as binary outcomes in early phase trials. Methods have been proposed to improve the efficiency of analysing response by utilising the continuous tumour size information instead of dichotomising it. However, these methods do not allow for toxicity or for different doses. Motivated by a phase II trial testing multiple doses of a treatment against placebo, we propose a latent variable model that can estimate the probability of response and no toxicity (or other related outcomes) for different doses. We assess the confidence interval coverage and efficiency properties of the method, compared to methods that do not use the continuous tumour size, in a simulation study and the real study. The coverage is close to nominal when model assumptions are met, although can be below nominal when the model is misspecified. Compared to methods that treat response as binary, the method has confidence intervals with 30-50% narrower widths. The method adds considerable efficiency but care must be taken that the model assumptions are reasonable.

A flexible design for advanced Phase I/II clinical trials with continuous efficacy endpoints

There is growing interest in integrated Phase I/II oncology clinical trials involving molecularly targeted agents (MTA). One of the main challenges of these trials are nontrivial dose-efficacy relationships and administration of MTAs in combination with other agents. While some designs were recently proposed for such Phase I/II trials, the majority of them consider the case of binary toxicity and efficacy endpoints only. At the same time, a continuous efficacy endpoint can carry more information about the agent's mechanism of action, but corresponding designs have received very limited attention in the literature. In this work, an extension of a recently developed information-theoretic design for the case of a continuous efficacy endpoint is proposed. The design transforms the continuous outcome using the logistic transformation and uses an information-theoretic argument to govern selection during the trial. The performance of the design is investigated in settings of single-agent and dual-agent trials. It is found that the novel design leads to substantial improvements in operating characteristics compared to a model-based alternative under scenarios with nonmonotonic dose/combination-efficacy relationships. The robustness of the design to missing/delayed efficacy responses and to the correlation in toxicity and efficacy endpoints is also investigated.

Flexible Phase I-II design for partially ordered regimens with application to therapeutic cancer vaccines

Existing methodology for the design of Phase I-II studies has been intended to search for the optimal regimen, based on a trade-off between toxicity and efficacy, from a set of regimens comprised of doses of a new agent. The underlying assumptions guiding allocation are that the dose-toxicity curve is monotonically increasing, and that the dose-efficacy curve either plateaus or decreases beyond an intermediate dose. This article considers the problem of designing Phase I-II studies that violate these assumptions for both outcomes. The motivating application studies regimens that are not defined by doses of a new agent, but rather a peptide vaccine plus novel adjuvants for the treatment of melanoma. All doses of each adjuvant are fixed, and the regimens vary by the number and selection of adjuvants. This structure produces regimen-toxicity curves that are partially ordered, and regimen-efficacy curves that may deviate from a plateau or unimodal shape. Application of a Bayesian model-based design is described in determining the optimal biologic regimen, based on bivariate binary measures of toxicity and biologic activity. A simulation study of the design's operating characteristics is conducted, and its versatility in handling other Phase I-II problems is discussed.

A latent variable model for improving inference in trials assessing the effect of dose on toxicity and composite efficacy endpoints

It is often of interest to explore how dose affects the toxicity and efficacy properties of a novel treatment. In oncology, efficacy is often assessed through response, which is defined by a patient having no new tumour lesions and their tumour size shrinking by 30%. Usually response and toxicity are analysed as binary outcomes in early phase trials. Methods have been proposed to improve the efficiency of analysing response by utilising the continuous tumour size information instead of dichotomising it. However, these methods do not allow for toxicity or for different doses. Motivated by a phase II trial testing multiple doses of a treatment against placebo, we propose a latent variable model that can estimate the probability of response and no toxicity (or other related outcomes) for different doses. We assess the confidence interval coverage and efficiency properties of the method, compared to methods that do not use the continuous tumour size, in a simulation study and the real study. The coverage is close to nominal when model assumptions are met, although can be below nominal when the model is misspecified. Compared to methods that treat response as binary, the method has confidence intervals with 30-50% narrower widths. The method adds considerable efficiency but care must be taken that the model assumptions are reasonable.