Optimus-Era Dose Finding for Rare Cancers

SUMMARY

Advances in cancer biology and diagnostics have led to the recognition of a multitude of rare cancer subtypes, emphasizing the pressing need for strategies to accelerate drug development for patients with these cancers. This paper addresses the unique challenges of dose finding in trials that accrue small numbers of patients with rare cancers; strategies for dose optimization are proposed, in line with evolving approaches to dose determination in the age of the US Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus.

Dose-finding based on feasibility and late-onset toxicity in adoptive cell therapy trials

Cell therapies comprise one of the most important advances in oncology. One of the biggest challenges in the early development of cell therapies is to recommend safe and feasible doses to carry forward to middle development. The treatment involves extracting cells from a patient, expanding the cells and infusing the cells back into the patient. Each dose level being studied is defined by the number of cells infused into the trial participant. The manufacturing process may not generate enough cells for a given patient to receive their assigned dose level, making it infeasible to administer their intended dose. The primary design challenge is to efficiently use accumulated data from participants treated away from their assigned dose to efficiently allocate future trial participants and recommend a feasible maximum tolerated dose (FMTD) at the study conclusion. Currently, there are few available options for designing and implementing Phase I trials of cell therapies that can incorporate a dose feasibility endpoint. Moreover, the application of these designs is limited to a traditional dose-finding framework, where the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) endpoint is observed in early cycles of therapy. This paper presents a novel phase I trial design for adoptive cell therapy that simultaneously accounts for dose feasibility and late-onset toxicities. We apply our design to a phase I dose-escalation trial of Rituximab-based bispecific activated T-cells combined with a fixed dose of Nivolumab. Our simulation results demonstrate that our proposed method can reduce trial duration without significantly hindering trial accuracy.

Early-Phase Oncology Trials: Why So Many Designs?

The past 30 years have seen a considerable effort on the part of statisticians to improve the design and accuracy of early-phase oncology trials. Some of this effort has been rewarded via successful implementation in actual trials, yet it would be fair to say that among clinicians, there remains some reluctance to fully embrace more efficient model-based approaches. One reason for such reticence is the difficulty in understanding exactly what is being offered by more modern designs. Although it is generally accepted that these designs offer improvements over the old standard 3 + 3 design, a new question has then to be addressed: How should we decide among the new proposals which one is the best for our purpose? In this study, we recall 15 designs that are currently proposed and in use. We show that among these 15 designs, many are operationally identical. These 15 designs reduce to three broad classes of designs. This review helps summarize their properties and differences and highlights that certain designs require ad hoc modifications to ensure satisfactory performance.

Impact of dose feasibility on the conduct of phase I trials of adoptive cell therapy

BACKGROUND

/Aims: In early-phase cell therapy trials, each dose level being studied is defined by the number of cells infused into the trial participant. The issue of dose feasibility presents itself when the desired number of cells is not reached in the expansion process. Consequently, dose assignments for some patients may deviate from the planned dose according to the chosen design. Widely used algorithmic designs aren't flexible enough to handle this complication and can lead to the exclusion of safety data from the dose assignment algorithm. This article studies the impact of dose feasibility challenges on the behavior of the 3 + 3 decision rule.

METHODS

We conducted a simulation study across six dose-feasibility and dose-toxicity scenarios. Trials are simulated using the 3 + 3 algorithm. We present a novel algorithm for random feasibility curve generation. We used this algorithm to conduct a large-scale simulation study across 100 random scenarios.

RESULTS

We found that the 3 + 3 has problematic characteristics due to the exclusion of safety data from the algorithm. Ignoring toxicity data can complicate the allocation of subsequent patients in the trial and can bias the final maximum tolerated dose recommendation for the next phase of drug development.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that excluding safety data from the 3 + 3 algorithm can be detrimental to trial conduct. Furthermore, there are existing methods that are flexible enough to include data that is observed away from the planned dose. We recommend that these methods be used in conducting phase I cell therapy trials.