Comparison of Various Phase I Combination Therapy Designs in Oncology for Evaluation of Early Tumor Shrinkage Using Simulations

There is still a lack of efficient designs for identifying the dose response in oncology combination therapies in early clinical trials. The concentration response relationship can be identified using the early tumor shrinkage time course, which has been shown to be a good early response marker of clinical efficacy. The performance of various designs using an exposure–tumor growth inhibition model was explored using simulations. Different combination effects of new drug M and cetuximab (reference therapy) were explored first assuming no effect of M on cetuximab (to investigate the type I error (α)), and subsequently assuming additivity or synergy between cetuximab and M. One‐arm, two‐arm, and four‐arm designs were evaluated. In the one‐arm design, 60 patients received cetuximab + M. In the two‐arm design, 30 patients received cetuximab and 30 received cetuximab + M. In the four‐arm design, in addition to cetuximab and cetuximab + M as standard doses, combination arms with lower doses of cetuximab were evaluated (15 patients/arm). Model‐based predictions or “simulated observations” of early tumor shrinkage at week 8 (ETS8) were compared between the different arms. With the same number of individuals, the one‐arm design showed better statistical power than other designs but led to strong inflation of α in case of misestimated reference for ETS8 value. The two‐arm design protected against this misestimation and, with the same total number of subjects, would provide higher statistical power than a four‐arm design. However, a four‐arm design would be helpful for exploring more doses of cetuximab in combination with M to better understand the interaction.

Design and conduct of early clinical studies of two or more targeted anticancer therapies: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of early (phase I and II) studies of combinations of molecular targeted agents during their 2012 meeting. The task force defined necessary non-clinical data, such as evidence of additive or synergistic effects in multiple molecularly credentialed and validated models, and appropriate pharmacodynamic marker development. A robust hypothesis was considered critical while non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies were also considered valuable. Clinical trials should include clear objectives that will prove or disprove the hypothesis. Predictive biomarkers/classifiers should be explored in phase I studies, rather than used to select patients. Trial design should be efficient and flexible rather than based on a strict progression from phase I to II to III; researchers could consider phase I studies with an expansion cohort, Phase I/II designs or phase II studies with a safety run in. Pharmacokinetics are recommended when interactions or overlapping toxicity is expected. Pharmacodynamic evaluations should be considered especially in a subset of patients closest to the recommended dose; an attempt should be made to validate surrogate tissues to enable inclusion for all patients. Schedule and or dose should be formally explored for e.g. with a randomised or an adaptive design. Data and knowledge sharing was strongly recommended, including the creation of formal or informal consortia of laboratories with individual expertise in pathway or target based models, collaboration between companies to ensure that agents which are 'best in class' are combined, and the development of databases which will be able to inform the development of future recommendations/guidelines.