BOIN12: Bayesian Optimal Interval Phase I/II Trial Design for Utility-Based Dose Finding in Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies

Challenges and Lessons Learned in Autologous Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Development from a Statistical Perspective

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a human gene therapy product where T cells from a patient are genetically modified to enable them to recognize desired target antigen(s) more effectively. In recent years, promising antitumor activity has been seen with autologous CAR T cells. Since 2017, six CAR T-cell therapies for the treatment of hematological malignancies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite the rapid progress of CAR T-cell therapies, considerable statistical challenges still exist for this category of products across all phases of clinical development that need to be addressed. These include (but not limited to) dose finding strategy, implementation of the estimand framework, use of real-world data in contextualizing single-arm CAR T trials, analysis of safety data and long-term follow-up studies. This paper is the first step in summarizing and addressing these statistical hurdles based on the development of the six approved CAR T-cell products.

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 seamless phase II/III design with dose optimization for oncology drug development

The US FDA's Project Optimus initiative that emphasizes dose optimization prior to marketing approval represents a pivotal shift in oncology drug development. It has a ripple effect for rethinking what changes may be made to conventional pivotal trial designs to incorporate a dose optimization component. Aligned with this initiative, we propose a novel seamless phase II/III design with dose optimization (SDDO framework). The proposed design starts with dose optimization in a randomized setting, leading to an interim analysis focused on optimal dose selection, trial continuation decisions, and sample size re-estimation (SSR). Based on the decision at interim analysis, patient enrollment continues for both the selected dose arm and control arm, and the significance of treatment effects will be determined at final analysis. The SDDO framework offers increased flexibility and cost-efficiency through sample size adjustment, while stringently controlling the Type I error. This proposed design also facilitates both accelerated approval (AA) and regular approval in a "one-trial" approach. Extensive simulation studies confirm that our design reliably identifies the optimal dosage and makes preferable decisions with a reduced sample size while retaining statistical power.

Strategies for successful dose optimization in oncology drug development: a practical guide

Dose optimization is a critical challenge in drug development. Historically, dose determination in oncology has followed a divergent path from other non-oncology therapeutic areas due to the unique characteristics and requirements in Oncology. However, with the emergence of new drug modalities and mechanisms of drugs in oncology, such as immune therapies, radiopharmaceuticals, targeted therapies, cytostatic agents, and others, the dose-response relationship for efficacy and toxicity could be vastly varied compared to the cytotoxic chemotherapies. The doses below the MTD may demonstrate similar efficacy to the MTD with an improved tolerability profile, resembling what is commonly observed in non-oncology treatments. Hence, alternate strategies for dose optimization are required for new modalities in oncology drug development. This paper delves into the historical evolution of dose finding methods from non-oncology to oncology, highlighting examples and summarizing the underlying drivers of change. Subsequently, a practical framework and guidance are provided to illustrate how dose optimization can be incorporated into various stages of the development program. We provide the following general recommendations: 1) The objective for phase I is to identify a dose range rather than a single MTD dose for subsequent development to better characterize the safety and tolerability profile within the dose range. 2) At least two doses separable by PK are recommended for dose optimization in phase II. 3) Ideally, dose optimization should be performed before launching the confirmatory study. Nevertheless, innovative designs such as seamless II/III design can be implemented for dose selection and may accelerate the drug development program.

A Personalized Dose-Finding Algorithm Based on Adaptive Gaussian Process Regression

Dose-finding studies play a crucial role in drug development by identifying the optimal dose(s) for later studies while considering tolerability. This not only saves time and effort in proceeding with Phase III trials but also improves efficacy. In an era of precision medicine, it is not ideal to assume patient homogeneity in dose-finding studies as patients may respond differently to the drug. To address this, we propose a personalized dose-finding algorithm that assigns patients to individualized optimal biological doses. Our design follows a two-stage approach. Initially, patients are enrolled under broad eligibility criteria. Based on the Stage 1 data, we fit a regression model of toxicity and efficacy outcomes on dose and biomarkers to characterize treatment-sensitive patients. In the second stage, we restrict the trial population to sensitive patients, apply a personalized dose allocation algorithm, and choose the recommended dose at the end of the trial. Simulation study shows that the proposed design reliably enriches the trial population, minimizes the number of failures, and yields superior operating characteristics compared to several existing dose-finding designs in terms of both the percentage of correct selection and the number of patients treated at target dose(s).

A generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization in immunotherapy

For novel immuno-oncology therapies, the primary purpose of a dose-finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD), defined as the tolerable dose having adequate efficacy and immune response under the unpredictable dose-outcome (toxicity, efficacy, and immune response) relationships. In addition, the multiple low or moderate-grade toxicities rather than dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and multiple levels of efficacy should be evaluated differently in dose-finding to determine true OD for developing novel immuno-oncology therapies. We proposed a generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for immunotherapy, simultaneously considering efficacy and toxicity grades and immune response outcomes. The proposed design, named gBOIN-ETI design, is model-assisted and easy to implement to develop immunotherapy efficiently. The operating characteristics of the gBOIN-ETI are compared with other dose-finding trial designs in oncology by simulation across various realistic settings. Our simulations show that the gBOIN-ETI design could outperform the other available approaches in terms of both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the OD across various realistic trial settings.

On the relative conservativeness of Bayesian logistic regression method in oncology dose-finding studies

The Bayesian logistic regression method (BLRM) is a widely adopted and flexible design for finding the maximum tolerated dose in oncology phase I studies. However, the BLRM design has been criticized in the literature for being overly conservative due to the use of the overdose control rule. Recently, a discussion paper titled "Improving the performance of Bayesian logistic regression model with overall control in oncology dose-finding studies" in Statistics in Medicine has proposed an overall control rule to address the "excessive conservativeness" of the standard BLRM design. In this short communication, we discuss the relative conservativeness of the standard BLRM design and also suggest a dose-switching rule to further enhance its performance.

A Bayesian latent-subgroup platform design for dose optimization

The US Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development, calling for the paradigm shift from finding the maximum tolerated dose to the identification of optimal biological dose (OBD). Motivated by a real-world drug development program, we propose a master-protocol-based platform trial design to simultaneously identify OBDs of a new drug, combined with standards of care or other novel agents, in multiple indications. We propose a Bayesian latent subgroup model to accommodate the treatment heterogeneity across indications, and employ Bayesian hierarchical models to borrow information within subgroups. At each interim analysis, we update the subgroup membership and dose-toxicity and -efficacy estimates, as well as the estimate of the utility for risk-benefit tradeoff, based on the observed data across treatment arms to inform the arm-specific decision of dose escalation and de-escalation and identify the OBD for each arm of a combination partner and an indication. The simulation study shows that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics, providing a highly flexible and efficient way for dose optimization. The design has great potential to shorten the drug development timeline, save costs by reducing overlapping infrastructure, and speed up regulatory approval.

Pharmacometrics-Enabled DOse OPtimization (PEDOOP) for seamless phase I-II trials in oncology

We consider a dose-optimization design for a first-in-human oncology trial that aims to identify a suitable dose for late-phase drug development. The proposed approach, called the Pharmacometrics-Enabled DOse OPtimization (PEDOOP) design, incorporates observed patient-level pharmacokinetics (PK) measurements and latent pharmacodynamics (PD) information for trial decision-making and dose optimization. PEDOOP consists of two seamless phases. In phase I, patient-level time-course drug concentrations, derived PD effects, and the toxicity outcomes from patients are integrated into a statistical model to estimate the dose-toxicity response. A simple dose-finding design guides dose escalation in phase I. At the end of the phase I dose finding, a graduation rule is used to assess the safety and efficacy of all the doses and select those with promising efficacy and acceptable safety for a randomized comparison against a control arm in phase II. In phase II, patients are randomized to the selected doses based on a fixed or adaptive randomization ratio. At the end of phase II, an optimal biological dose (OBD) is selected for late-phase development. We conduct simulation studies to assess the PEDOOP design in comparison to an existing seamless design that also combines phases I and II in a single trial.

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.

Adaptive Bayesian information borrowing methods for finding and optimizing subgroup-specific doses

In precision oncology, integrating multiple cancer patient subgroups into a single master protocol allows for the simultaneous assessment of treatment effects in these subgroups and promotes the sharing of information between them, ultimately reducing sample sizes and costs and enhancing scientific validity. However, the safety and efficacy of these therapies may vary across different subgroups, resulting in heterogeneous outcomes. Therefore, identifying subgroup-specific optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is crucial for the development of future trials. In this article, we review various innovative Bayesian information-borrowing strategies that aim to determine and optimize subgroup-specific doses. Specifically, we discuss Bayesian hierarchical modeling, Bayesian clustering, Bayesian model averaging or selection, pairwise borrowing, and other relevant approaches. By employing these Bayesian information-borrowing methods, investigators can gain a better understanding of the intricate relationships between dose, toxicity, and efficacy in each subgroup. This increased understanding significantly improves the chances of identifying an optimal dose tailored to each specific subgroup. Furthermore, we present several practical recommendations to guide the design of future early-phase oncology trials involving multiple subgroups when using the Bayesian information-borrowing methods.

A Bayesian quasi-likelihood design for identifying the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose in dose-ranging studies

Most existing dose-ranging study designs focus on assessing the dose-efficacy relationship and identifying the minimum effective dose. There is an increasing interest in optimizing the dose based on the benefit-risk tradeoff. We propose a Bayesian quasi-likelihood dose-ranging design that jointly considers safety and efficacy to simultaneously identify the minimum effective dose and the maximum utility dose to optimize the benefit-risk tradeoff. The binary toxicity endpoint is modeled using a beta-binomial model. The efficacy endpoint is modeled using the quasi-likelihood approach to accommodate various types of data (e.g. binary, ordinal or continuous) without imposing any parametric assumptions on the dose-response curve. Our design utilizes a utility function as a measure of benefit-risk tradeoff and adaptively assign patients to doses based on the doses' likelihood of being the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose. The design takes a group-sequential approach. At each interim, the doses that are deemed overly toxic or futile are dropped. At the end of the trial, we use posterior probability criteria to assess the strength of the dose-response relationship for establishing the proof-of-concept. If the proof-of-concept is established, we identify the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose. Our simulation study shows that compared with some existing designs, the Bayesian quasi-likelihood dose-ranging design is robust and yields competitive performance in establishing proof-of-concept and selecting the minimum effective dose. Moreover, it includes an additional feature for further maximum utility dose selection.

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I/II clinical trials

In recent years, both model-based and model-assisted designs have emerged to efficiently determine the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II trials for immunotherapy and targeted cellular agents. Model-based designs necessitate repeated model fitting and computationally intensive posterior sampling for each dose-assignment decision, limiting their practical application in real trials. On the other hand, model-assisted designs employ simple statistical models and facilitate the precalculation of a decision table for use throughout the trial, eliminating the need for repeated model fitting. Due to their simplicity and transparency, model-assisted designs are often preferred in phase I/II trials. In this paper, we systematically evaluate and compare the operating characteristics of several recent model-assisted phase I/II designs, including TEPI, PRINTE, Joint i3+3, BOIN-ET, STEIN, uTPI, and BOIN12, in addition to the well-known model-based EffTox design, using comprehensive numerical simulations. To ensure an unbiased comparison, we generated 10,000 dosing scenarios using a random scenario generation algorithm for each predetermined OBD location. We thoroughly assess various performance metrics, such as the selection percentages, average patient allocation to OBD, and overdose percentages across the eight designs. Based on these assessments, we offer design recommendations tailored to different objectives, sample sizes, and starting dose locations.

Optimal biological dose selection in dose-finding trials with model-assisted designs based on efficacy and toxicity: a simulation study

With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies in anti-cancer treatment, a concept of optimal biological dose (OBD), accounting for efficacy and toxicity in the framework of dose-finding, has been widely introduced into phase I oncology clinical trials. Various model-assisted designs with dose-escalation rules based jointly on toxicity and efficacy are now available to establish the OBD, where the OBD is generally selected at the end of the trial using all toxicity and efficacy data obtained from the entire cohort. Several measures to select the OBD and multiple methods to estimate the efficacy probability have been developed for the OBD selection, leading to many options in practice; however, their comparative performance is still uncertain, and practitioners need to take special care of which approaches would be the best for their applications. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study to demonstrate the operating characteristics of the OBD selection approaches. The simulation study revealed key features of utility functions measuring the toxicity-efficacy trade-off and suggested that the measure used to select the OBD could vary depending on the choice of the dose-escalation procedure. Modelling the efficacy probability might lead to limited gains in OBD selection.

Accelerating drug development at Bristol Myers Squibb through innovation

This paper focuses on the use of novel technologies and innovative trial designs to accelerate evidence generation and increase pharmaceutical Research and Development (R&D) productivity, at Bristol Myers Squibb. We summarize learnings with case examples, on how we prepared and continuously evolved to address the increasing cost, complexities, and external pressures in drug development, to bring innovative medicines to patients much faster. These learnings were based on review of internal efforts toward accelerating R&D focusing on four key areas: adopting innovative trial designs, optimizing trial designs, leveraging external control data, and implementing novel methods using artificial intelligence and machine learning.

BOIN-ETC: A Bayesian optimal interval design considering efficacy and toxicity to identify the optimal dose combinations

One of the primary objectives of a dose-finding trial for novel anti-cancer agent combination therapies, such as molecular targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify optimal dose combinations that are tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. The goal differs from that of a dose-finding trial for traditional cytotoxic agents, in which the goal is to determine the maximum tolerated dose combinations. This paper proposes the new design, named 'BOIN-ETC' design, to identify optimal dose combinations based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes using the waterfall approach. The BOIN-ETC design is model-assisted, so it is expected to be robust, and straightforward to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials. These characteristics are quite valuable from a practical perspective. Simulation studies show that the BOIN-ETC design has advantages compared with the other approaches in the percentage of correct optimal dose combination selection and the average number of patients allocated to the optimal dose combinations across various realistic settings.

Current status of immunological therapies for rheumatoid arthritis with a focus on antigen-specific therapeutic vaccines

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is recognized as an autoimmune joint disease driven by T cell responses to self (or modified self or microbial mimic) antigens that trigger and aggravate the inflammatory condition. Newer treatments of RA employ monoclonal antibodies or recombinant receptors against cytokines or immune cell receptors as well as small-molecule Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to systemically ablate the cytokine or cellular responses that fuel inflammation. Unlike these treatments, a therapeutic vaccine, such as CEL-4000, helps balance adaptive immune homeostasis by promoting antigen-specific regulatory rather than inflammatory responses, and hence modulates the immunopathological course of RA. In this review, we discuss the current and proposed therapeutic products for RA, with an emphasis on antigen-specific therapeutic vaccine approaches to the treatment of the disease. As an example, we describe published results of the beneficial effects of CEL-4000 vaccine on animal models of RA. We also make a recommendation for the design of appropriate clinical studies for these newest therapeutic approaches, using the CEL-4000 vaccine as an example. Unlike vaccines that create or boost a new immune response, the clinical success of an immunomodulatory therapeutic vaccine for RA lies in its ability to redirect autoreactive pro-inflammatory memory T cells towards rebalancing the "runaway" immune/inflammatory responses that characterize the disease. Human trials of such a therapy will require alternative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation for determining safety, toxicity, and efficacy. These approaches include adaptive design (such as the Bayesian optimal design (BOIN), currently employed in oncological clinical studies), and the use of disease-related biomarkers as indicators of treatment success.

A conceptual framework for cautious escalation of anticancer treatment: How to optimize overall benefit and obviate the need for de-escalation trials

BACKGROUND

The developmental workflow of the currently performed phase 1, 2 and 3 cancer trial stages lacks essential information required for the determination of the optimal efficacy threshold of new anticancer regimens. Due to this there is a serious risk of overdosing and/or treating for an unnecessary long time, leading to excess toxicity and a higher financial burden for society. But often post-approval de-escalation trials for dose-optimization and treatment de-intensification are not performed due to failing resources and time. Therefore, the developmental workflow needs to be restructured toward cautious systemic cancer treatment escalation, in order to guarantee optimal efficacy and sustainability.

METHODS

In this manuscript we discuss opportunities to produce the information needed for cautious escalation, based on models of cancer growth and cancer kill kinetics as well as exploratory biomarkers, for the purpose of designing the optimal phase 3 superiority trial. Subsequently, we compare the sample size needed for a phase 3 superiority trial, followed by a necessary de-escalation trial with the sample size needed for a multi-arm phase 3 trial with intervention arms of differing intensity. All essential items are structured within a Framework for Cautious Escalation (FCE). The discussion uses illustrations from the breast cancer setting, but aims to be applicable for all cancers.

RESULTS

The FCE is a promising model of clinical development in oncology to prevent overtreatment and associated issues, especially with regard to the number of repetitive treatment cycles. It will hopefully increase the relevance and success rate of clinical trials, to deliver improved patient-centric outcomes.

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.

Bayesian dose escalation with overdose and underdose control utilizing all toxicities in Phase I/II clinical trials

Escalation with overdose control (EWOC) is a commonly used Bayesian adaptive design, which controls overdosing risk while estimating maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in cancer Phase I clinical trials. In 2010, Chen and his colleagues proposed a novel toxicity scoring system to fully utilize patients' toxicity information by using a normalized equivalent toxicity score (NETS) in the range 0 to 1 instead of a binary indicator of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Later in 2015, by adding underdosing control into EWOC, escalation with overdose and underdose control (EWOUC) design was proposed to guarantee patients the minimum therapeutic effect of drug in Phase I/II clinical trials. In this paper, the EWOUC-NETS design is developed by integrating the advantages of EWOUC and NETS in a Bayesian context. Moreover, both toxicity response and efficacy are treated as continuous variables to maximize trial efficiency. The dose escalation decision is based on the posterior distribution of both toxicity and efficacy outcomes, which are recursively updated with accumulated data. We compare the operation characteristics of EWOUC-NETS and existing methods through simulation studies under five scenarios. The study results show that EWOUC-NETS design treating toxicity and efficacy outcomes as continuous variables can increase accuracy in identifying the optimized utility dose (OUD) and provide better therapeutic effects.

Randomized Phase I Trials - One Size Fits All?

In this issue of NEJM Evidence, Gaudet et al. present the safety profile and pharmacodynamics of ARO-APOC3, a small interfering RNA therapeutic that inhibits apolipoprotein C-III (APOC3) mRNA expression in a phase I trial.1 Assignment to treatment was based on fasting levels of triglycerides. The trial included two double-blinded cohorts with 52 randomly assigned healthy participants and 40 patients with hypertriglyceridemia assigned to escalating doses of ARO-APOC3 at 10, 25, 50, or 100 mg or placebo in a single- and/or repeat-dose (days 1 and 29) regimen. An open-label cohort of patients with chylomicronemia was treated with ARO-APOC3 at 50 mg.

Application of multi-armed bandits to dose-finding clinical designs

Multi-armed bandits are very simple and powerful methods to determine actions to maximize a reward in a limited number of trials. An early phase in dose-finding clinical trials needs to identify the maximum tolerated dose among multiple doses by repeating the dose-assignment. We consider applying the superior selection performance of multi-armed bandits to dose-finding clinical designs. Among the multi-armed bandits, we first consider the use of Thompson sampling which determines actions based on random samples from a posterior distribution. In the small sample size, as shown in dose-finding trials, because the tails of posterior distribution are heavier and random samples are too much variability, we also consider an application of regularized Thompson sampling and greedy algorithm. The greedy algorithm determines a dose based on a posterior mean. In addition, we also propose a method to determine a dose based on a posterior mode. We evaluate the performance of our proposed designs for nine scenarios via simulation studies.

A Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on pharmacokinetics outcomes in oncology

The primary objective of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify the optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic (PK) information is considered an appropriate indicator for evaluating the level of drug intervention in humans from a pharmacological perspective. Several novel anticancer agents have been shown to have significant exposure-efficacy relationships, and some PK information has been considered an important predictor of efficacy. This paper proposes a Bayesian optimal interval design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on PK outcomes in oncology. A simulation study shows that the proposed design has advantages compared to the other designs in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to OD in various realistic settings.

TITE-gBOIN-ET: Time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding accounting for ordinal graded efficacy and toxicity outcomes

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, for efficacy, evaluating the overall response and long-term stable disease in solid tumors and considering the difference between complete remission and partial remission in lymphoma are preferable. It is also essential to accelerate early-stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make real-time adaptive decisions due to late-onset outcomes, fast accrual rates, and differences in outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity. To solve the issues, we propose a time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose finding, accounting for efficacy and toxicity grades. The new design named "TITE-gBOIN-ET" design is model-assisted and straightforward to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials. Simulation studies show that the TITE-gBOIN-ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment while having comparable or higher performance in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across various realistic settings.

Local continual reassessment methods for dose finding and optimization in drug-combination trials

Due to the limited sample size and large dose exploration space, obtaining a desirable dose combination is a challenging task in the early development of combination treatments for cancer patients. Most existing designs for optimizing the dose combination are model-based, requiring significant efforts to elicit parameters or prior distributions. Model-based designs also rely on intensive model calibration and may yield unstable performance in the case of model misspecification or sparse data. We propose to employ local, underparameterized models for dose exploration to reduce the hurdle of model calibration and enhance the design robustness. Building upon the framework of the partial ordering continual reassessment method, we develop local data-based continual reassessment method designs for identifying the maximum tolerated dose combination, using toxicity only, and the optimal biological dose combination, using both toxicity and efficacy, respectively. The local data-based continual reassessment method designs only model the local data from neighboring dose combinations. Therefore, they are flexible in estimating the local space and circumventing unstable characterization of the entire dose-exploration surface. Our simulation studies show that our approach has competitive performance compared to widely used methods for finding maximum tolerated dose combination, and it has advantages over existing model-based methods for optimizing optimal biological dose combination.

A comparative study of adaptive trial designs for dose optimization

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development. The agency pointed out that the current paradigm for dose selection-based on the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)-is not sufficient for molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, for which efficacy may not increase after the dose reaches a certain level. In these cases, it is more appropriate to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD) that optimizes the risk-benefit tradeoff of the drug. Project Optimus has spurred tremendous interest and urgent need for guidance on designing dose optimization trials. In this article, we review several representative dose optimization designs, including model-based and model-assisted designs, and compare their operating characteristics based on 10,000 randomly generated scenarios with various dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy curves and some fixed representative scenarios. The results show that, compared with model-based designs, model-assisted methods have advantages of easy-to-implement, robustness, and high accuracy to identify OBD. Some guidance is provided to help biostatisticians and clinicians to choose appropriate dose optimization methods in practice.

Comparison Between Simultaneous and Sequential Utilization of Safety and Efficacy for Optimal Dose Determination in Bayesian Model-Assisted Designs

It has become quite common in recent early oncology trials to include both the dose-finding and the dose-expansion parts within the same study. This shift can be viewed as a seamless way of conducting the trials to obtain information on safety and efficacy hence identifying an optimal dose (OD) rather than just the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). One approach is to conduct a dose-finding part based solely on toxicity outcomes, followed by a dose expansion part to evaluate efficacy outcomes. Another approach employs only the dose-finding part, where the dose-finding decisions are made utilizing both the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of those enrolled patients. In this paper, we compared the two approaches through simulation studies under various realistic settings. The percentage of correct ODs selection, the average number of patients allocated to the ODs, and the average trial duration are reported in choosing the appropriate designs for their early-stage dose-finding trials, including expansion cohorts.

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.

Adaptive Cohort Size Determination Method for Bayesian Optimal Interval Phase I/II Design to Shorten Clinical Trial Duration

PURPOSE

Recently, the strategy for dose optimization in oncology has shifted toward conducting phase II randomized controlled trials with multiple doses. Optimal biologic dose (OBD) selection from phase I trial data to determine candidate doses for phase II trials has been gaining attention. Trials to identify the OBD have a fixed cohort size, which increases the trial duration. We propose a method to increase the cohort size using trial data and shorten the trial duration while maintaining accuracy.

METHODS

We propose a novel adaptive cohort size determination method in which the increase of cohort size is determined using desirability probability on the basis of toxicity and efficacy data. The desirability probability is a measure of how desirable a dose is and thus how close it is to the OBD. However, during the trial, the desirability probability does not need to be calculated. Instead, the cohort size expansion can be determined by a simple table generated in advance from toxicity and efficacy data. An illustrated example is provided and the performance was evaluated in a simulation study with 16 scenarios.

RESULTS

In the simulation study, the trial duration was reduced by an average of 20% compared with the conventional design. The percentages of correct OBD selection are almost the same as those with the conventional design.

CONCLUSION

The proposed adaptive cohort size determination method described in this study reduces trial duration while maintaining accuracy.

Looking ahead in early-phase trial design to improve the drug development process: examples in oncology

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial design must consider the specific resource constraints and overall goals of the drug development process (DDP); for example, in designing a phase I trial to evaluate the safety of a drug and recommend a dose for a subsequent phase II trial. Here, we focus on design considerations that involve the sequence of clinical trials, from early phase I to late phase III, that constitute the DDP.

METHODS

We discuss how stylized simulation models of clinical trials in an oncology DDP can quantify important relationships between early-phase trial designs and their consequences for the remaining phases of development. Simulations for three illustrative settings are presented, using stylized models of the DDP that mimic trial designs and decisions, such as the potential discontinuation of the DDP.

RESULTS

We describe: (1) the relationship between a phase II single-arm trial sample size and the likelihood of a positive result in a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial; (2) the impact of a phase I dose-finding design on the likelihood that the DDP will produce evidence of a safe and effective therapy; and (3) the impact of a phase II enrichment trial design on the operating characteristics of a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Stylized models of the DDP can support key decisions, such as the sample size, in the design of early-phase trials. Simulation models can be used to estimate performance metrics of the DDP under realistic scenarios; for example, the duration and the total number of patients enrolled. These estimates complement the evaluation of the operating characteristics of early-phase trial design, such as power or accuracy in selecting safe and effective dose levels.

AIDE: Adaptive intrapatient dose escalation designs to accelerate Phase I clinical trials

Designing Phase I clinical trials is challenging when accrual is slow or sample size is limited. The corresponding key question is: how to efficiently and reliably identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) using a sample size as small as possible? We propose model-assisted and model-based designs with adaptive intrapatient dose escalation (AIDE) to address this challenge. AIDE is adaptive in that the decision of conducting intrapatient dose escalation depends on both the patient's individual safety data, as well as other enrolled patient's safety data. When both data indicate reasonable safety, a patient may perform intrapatient dose escalation, generating toxicity data at more than one dose. This strategy not only provides patients the opportunity to receive higher potentially more effective doses, but also enables efficient statistical learning of the dose-toxicity profile of the treatment, which dramatically reduces the required sample size. Simulation studies show that the proposed designs are safe, robust, and efficient to identify the MTD with a sample size that is substantially smaller than conventional interpatient dose escalation designs. Practical considerations are provided and R code for implementing AIDE is available upon request.

Shotgun-2: A Bayesian phase I/II basket trial design to identify indication-specific optimal biological doses

For novel molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies, the objective of dose-finding is often to identify the optimal biological dose, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, optimal biological doses may not be the same for different indications, challenging the traditional dose-finding framework. Therefore, we proposed a Bayesian phase I/II basket trial design, named "shotgun-2," to identify indication-specific optimal biological doses. A dose-escalation part is conducted in stage I to identify the maximum tolerated dose and admissible dose sets. In stage II, dose optimization is performed incorporating both toxicity and efficacy for each indication. Simulation studies under both fixed and random scenarios show that, compared with the traditional "phase I  +  cohort expansion" design, the shotgun-2 design is robust and can improve the probability of correctly selecting the optimal biological doses. Furthermore, this study provides a useful tool for identifying indication-specific optimal biological doses and accelerating drug development.

Data-dependent early completion of dose-finding trials for drug-combination

PURPOSE

Model-assisted designs for drug combination trials have been proposed as novel designs with simple and superior performance. However, model-assisted designs have the disadvantage that the sample size must be set in advance, and trials cannot be completed until the number of patients treated reaches the pre-set sample size. Model-assisted designs have a stopping rule that can be used to terminate the trial if the number of patients treated exceeds the predetermined number, there is no statistical basis for the predetermined number. Here, I propose two methods for data-dependent early completion of dose-finding trials for drug combination: (1) an early completion method based on dose retainment probability, and (2) an early completion method in which the dose retainment probability is adjusted by a bivariate isotonic regression.

METHODS

Early completion is determined when the dose retainment probability using both trial data and the number of remaining patients is high. Early completion of a virtual trial was demonstrated. The performances of the early completion methods were evaluated by simulation studies with 12 scenarios.

RESULTS

The simulation studies showed that the percentage of early completion was an average of approximately 70%, and the number of patients treated was 25% less than the planned sample size. The percentage of correct maximum tolerated dose combination selection for the early completion methods was similar to that of non-early completion methods with an average difference of approximately 3%.

CONCLUSION

The performance of the proposed early completion methods was similar to that of the non-early completion methods. Furthermore, the number of patients for determining early completion before the trial starts was determined and a program code for calculating the dose retainment probability was proposed.

A Bayesian design for finding optimal biological dose with mixed types of responses of toxicity and efficacy

For molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the targeted dose in the early phase clinical trial has been shifted from the maximum tolerated dose for the cytotoxic drug to the optimal biological dose where both toxicity and efficacy are considered. In this paper, we consider the situation that the responses of toxicity and efficacy are mixed in binary and continuous types, respectively, where the continuous endpoint bears more magnitude information than the binary endpoint after dichotomization. We propose combining two model-based designs to sequentially identify the most efficacious and tolerably safe dose. The employed designs both take the dose level information into account to achieve high estimation efficiency. We demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method to some existing methods by simulation.

Improving early phase oncology clinical trial design: The case for finding the optimal biological dose

Historically early phase oncology drug development programmes have been based on the belief that "more is better". Furthermore, rule-based study designs such as the "3 + 3" design are still often used to identify the MTD. Phillips and Clark argue that newer Bayesian model-assisted designs such as the BOIN design should become the go to designs for statisticians for MTD finding. This short communication goes one stage further and argues that Bayesian model-assisted designs such as the BOIN12 which balances risk-benefit should be included as one of the go to designs for early phase oncology trials, depending on the study objectives. Identifying the optimal biological dose for future research for many modern targeted drugs, immunotherapies, cell therapies and vaccine therapies can save significant time and resources.

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.

Incorporating historical information to improve dose optimization design with toxicity and efficacy endpoints: iBOIN-ET

In modern oncology drug development, adaptive designs have been proposed to identify the recommended phase 2 dose. The conventional dose finding designs focus on the identification of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). However, designs ignoring efficacy could put patients under risk by pushing to the MTD. Especially in immuno-oncology and cell therapy, the complex dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships make such MTD driven designs more questionable. Additionally, it is not uncommon to have data available from other studies that target on similar mechanism of action and patient population. Due to the high variability from phase I trial, it is beneficial to borrow historical study information into the design when available. This will help to increase the model efficiency and accuracy and provide dose specific recommendation rules to avoid toxic dose level and increase the chance of patient allocation at potential efficacious dose levels. In this paper, we propose iBOIN-ET design that uses prior distribution extracted from historical studies to minimize the probability of decision error. The proposed design utilizes the concept of skeleton from both toxicity and efficacy data, coupled with prior effective sample size to control the amount of historical information to be incorporated. Extensive simulation studies across a variety of realistic settings are reported including a comparison of iBOIN-ET design to other model based and assisted approaches. The proposed novel design demonstrates the superior performances in percentage of selecting the correct optimal dose (OD), average number of patients allocated to the correct OD, and overdosing control during dose escalation process.

An overview of the BOIN design and its current extensions for novel early-phase oncology trials

Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) designs are a class of model-assisted dose-finding designs that can be used in oncology trials to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a study drug based on safety or the optimal biological dose (OBD) based on safety and efficacy. BOIN designs provide a complete suite for dose finding in early phase trials, as well as a consistent way to explore different scenarios such as toxicity, efficacy, continuous outcomes, delayed toxicity or efficacy and drug combinations in a unified manner with easy access to software to implement most of these designs. Although built upon Bayesian probability models, BOIN designs are operationally simple in general and have good statistical operating characteristics compared to other dose-finding designs. This review paper describes the original BOIN design and its many extensions, their advantages and limitations, the software used to implement them, and the most suitable situation for use of each of these designs. Published examples of the implementation of BOIN designs are provided in the Appendix.

TITE-BOIN12: A Bayesian phase I/II trial design to find the optimal biological dose with late-onset toxicity and efficacy

In the era of immunotherapies and targeted therapies, the focus of early phase clinical trials has shifted from finding the maximum tolerated dose to identifying the optimal biological dose (OBD), which maximizes the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. One major impediment to using adaptive designs to find OBD is that efficacy or/and toxicity are often late-onset, hampering the designs' real-time decision rules for treating new patients. To address this issue, we propose the model-assisted TITE-BOIN12 design to find OBD with late-onset toxicity and efficacy. As an extension of the BOIN12 design, the TITE-BOIN12 design also uses utility to quantify the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. We consider two approaches, Bayesian data augmentation and an approximated likelihood method, to enable real-time decision making when some patients' toxicity and efficacy outcomes are pending. Extensive simulations show that, compared to some existing designs, TITE-BOIN12 significantly shortens the trial duration while having comparable or higher accuracy to identify OBD and a lower risk of overdosing patients. To facilitate the use of the TITE-BOIN12 design, we develop a user-friendly software freely available at http://www.trialdesign.org.

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.

Lessons Learned From Implementing a Novel Bayesian Adaptive Dose-Finding Design in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

Novel Bayesian adaptive designs provide an effective way to improve clinical trial efficiency. These designs are superior to conventional methods, but implementing them can be challenging. The aim of this article was to describe what we learned while applying a novel Bayesian phase I-II design in a recent trial.

METHODS

The primary goal of the trial was to optimize radiation therapy (RT) dose among three levels (low, standard, and high), given either with placebo (P) or an investigational agent (A), for treating locally advanced, radiation-naive pancreatic cancer, deemed appropriate for RT rather than surgery. Up to 48 patients were randomly assigned fairly between RT plus P and RT plus A, with RT dose-finding done within each arm using the late-onset efficacy-toxicity design on the basis of two coprimary end points, tumor response and dose-limiting toxicity, both evaluated at up to 90 days. The random assignment was blinded, but within each arm, unblinded RT doses were chosen adaptively using software developed within the institution.

RESULTS

Implementing the design involved double-blind balance-restricted random assignment, real-time assessment of patient outcomes to evaluate the efficacy-toxicity trade-off for each RT dose in each arm to optimize each patient's RT dose adaptively, and transition from a single-center trial to a multicenter trial. We present lessons learned and illustrative documentation.

CONCLUSION

Implementing novel Bayesian adaptive trial designs requires close collaborations between physicians, pharmacists, statisticians, data managers, and sponsors. The process is difficult but manageable and essential for efficient trial conduct. Close collaboration during trial conduct is a key component of any trial that includes real-time adaptive decision rules.

BOIN: a novel Bayesian design platform to accelerate early phase brain tumor clinical trials

Despite decades of extensive research, the progress in developing effective treatments for primary brain tumors lags behind that of other cancers, largely due to the unique challenges of brain tumors (eg, the blood-brain barrier and high heterogeneity) that limit the delivery and efficacy of many therapeutic agents. One way to address this issue is to employ novel trial designs to better optimize the treatment regimen (eg, dose and schedule) in early phase trials to improve the success rate of subsequent phase III trials. The objective of this article is to introduce Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) designs as a novel platform to design various types of early phase brain tumor trials, including single-agent and combination regimen trials, trials with late-onset toxicities, and trials aiming to find the optimal biological dose (OBD) based on both toxicity and efficacy. Unlike many novel Bayesian adaptive designs, which are difficult to understand and complicated to implement by clinical investigators, the BOIN designs are self-explanatory and user friendly, yet yield more robust and powerful operating characteristics than conventional designs. We illustrate the BOIN designs using a phase I clinical trial of brain tumor and provide software (freely available at www.trialdesign.org) to facilitate the application of the BOIN design.

Bayesian adaptive model selection design for optimal biological dose finding in phase I/II clinical trials

Identification of the optimal dose presents a major challenge in drug development with molecularly targeted agents, immunotherapy, as well as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatments. By casting dose finding as a Bayesian model selection problem, we propose an adaptive design by simultaneously incorporating the toxicity and efficacy outcomes to select the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II clinical trials. Without imposing any parametric assumption or shape constraint on the underlying dose-response curves, we specify curve-free models for both the toxicity and efficacy endpoints to determine the OBD. By integrating the observed data across all dose levels, the proposed design is coherent in dose assignment and thus greatly enhances efficiency and accuracy in pinning down the right dose. Not only does our design possess a completely new yet flexible dose-finding framework, but it also has satisfactory and robust performance as demonstrated by extensive simulation studies. In addition, we show that our design enjoys desirable coherence properties, while most of existing phase I/II designs do not. We further extend the design to accommodate late-onset outcomes which are common in immunotherapy. The proposed design is exemplified with a phase I/II clinical trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Dynamics of circulating tumor DNA during postoperative radiotherapy in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) kinetics during postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

Stage II/III patients with post-NAC residual TNBC who required PORT were prospectively included in this study between March 2019 and July 2020. For 11 TNBC patients, next-generation sequencing targeting 38 genes was conducted in 55 samples, including tumor tissue, three plasma samples, and leukocytes from each patient. The plasma samples were collected at three-time points; pre-PORT (T0), after 3 weeks of PORT (T1), and 1 month after PORT (T2). Serial changes in ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Somatic variants were found in the tumor specimens in 9 out of 11 (81.8%) patients. Mutated genes included TP53 (n = 7); PIK3CA (n = 2); and AKT1, APC, CSMD3, MYC, PTEN, and RB1 (n = 1). These tumor mutations were not found in plasma samples. Plasma ctDNA variants were detected in three (27.3%) patients at T0. Mutations in EGFR (n = 1), CTNNB1 (n = 1), and MAP2K (n = 1) was identified with ctDNA analysis. In two (18.2%) patients, the ctDNA VAF decreased through T1 and T2 while increasing at T2 in one (9.1%) patient. After a median follow-up of 22 months, no patient showed cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with post-NAC residual TNBC, more than a quarter exhibited a detectable amount of ctDNA after curative surgery. The ctDNA VAF changed variably during the course of PORT. Therefore, ctDNA kinetics can serve as a biomarker for optimizing adjuvant treatment.

How I treat pediatric acute myeloid leukemia

Treatment outcomes for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have continued to lag behind outcomes reported for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), in part because of the heterogeneity of the disease, a paucity of targeted therapies, and the relatively slow development of immunotherapy compared to ALL. In addition, we have reached the limits of treatment intensity and, even with outstanding supportive care, it is highly unlikely that further intensification of conventional chemotherapy alone will impact relapse rates. However, comprehensive genomic analyses and a more thorough characterization of the leukemic stem cell have provided insights that should lead to tailored and more effective therapies in the near future. In addition, new therapies are finally emerging, including the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax, CD33 and CD123-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, CD123-directed antibody therapy, and menin inhibitors. Here we present four cases to illustrate some of the controversies regarding the optimal treatment of children with newly diagnosed or relapsed AML.

The use of local and nonlocal priors in Bayesian test-based monitoring for single-arm phase II clinical trials

Bayesian sequential monitoring is widely used in adaptive phase II studies where the objective is to examine whether an experimental drug is efficacious. Common approaches for Bayesian sequential monitoring are based on posterior or predictive probabilities and Bayesian hypothesis testing procedures using Bayes factors. In the first part of the paper, we briefly show the connections between test-based (TB) and posterior probability-based (PB) sequential monitoring approaches. Next, we extensively investigate the choice of local and nonlocal priors for the TB monitoring procedure. We describe the pros and cons of different priors in terms of operating characteristics. We also develop a user-friendly Shiny application to implement the TB design.