Search

There has been constant development of novel statistical methods in the design of early-phase clinical trials since the introduction of model-based designs, yet the traditional or modified 3+3 algorithmic design remains the most widely used approach in dose-finding studies. Research has shown the limitations of this traditional design compared with more innovative approaches yet the use of these model-based designs remains infrequent. This can be attributed to several causes including a poor understanding from clinicians and reviewers into how the designs work, and how best to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed design. These barriers are likely to be enhanced in the coming years as the recent paradigm of drug development involves a shift to more complex dose-finding problems. This article reviews relevant information that should be included in clinical trial protocols to aid in the acceptance and approval of novel methods. We provide practical guidance for implementing these efficient designs with the aim of augmenting a broader transition from algorithmic to adaptive model-guided designs. In addition we highlight issues to consider in the actual implementation of a trial once approval is obtained. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Toxicity probability interval designs have received increasing attention as a dose-finding method in recent years. In this study, we compared the two-stage, likelihood-based continual reassessment method (CRM), modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI), and the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN) in order to evaluate each method's performance in dose selection for phase I trials. We use several summary measures to compare the performance of these methods, including percentage of correct selection (PCS) of the true maximum tolerable dose (MTD), allocation of patients to doses at and around the true MTD, and an accuracy index. This index is an efficiency measure that describes the entire distribution of MTD selection and patient allocation by taking into account the distance between the true probability of toxicity at each dose level and the target toxicity rate. The simulation study considered a broad range of toxicity curves and various sample sizes. When considering PCS, we found that CRM outperformed the two competing methods in most scenarios, followed by BOIN, then mTPI. We observed a similar trend when considering the accuracy index for dose allocation, where CRM most often outperformed both mTPI and BOIN. These trends were more pronounced with increasing number of dose levels. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a new design for dose finding for cytotoxic agents in two ordered groups of patients. By ordered groups, we mean that prior to the study there is clinical information that would indicate that for a given dose one group would be more susceptible to toxicities than patients in the other group. The designs are evaluated relative to two previously proposed designs for ordered groups over a range of scenarios generated randomly from a family of dose-toxicity curves. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptive, model-based, dose-finding methods, such as the continual reassessment method, have been shown to have good operating characteristics. One school of thought argues in favor of the use of parsimonious models, not modeling all aspects of the problem, and using a strict minimum number of parameters. In particular, for the standard situation of a single homogeneous group, it is common to appeal to a one-parameter model. Other authors argue for a more classical approach that models all aspects of the problem. Here, we show that increasing the dimension of the parameter space, in the context of adaptive dose-finding studies, is usually counter productive and, rather than leading to improvements in operating characteristics, the added dimensionality is likely to result in difficulties. Among these are inconsistency of parameter estimates, lack of coherence in escalation or de-escalation, erratic behavior, getting stuck at the wrong level, and, in almost all cases, poorer performance in terms of correct identification of the targeted dose. Our conclusions are based on both theoretical results and simulations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]