A simulation study of the standard design, the rolling six design, the CRM, and the modified CRM in Phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is considered the "first in human" study in medical research to examine the toxicity of a new agent. It determines the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new agent, i.e., the highest dose in which toxicity is still acceptable. Several phase I clinical trial designs have been proposed in the past 30 years. The well known standard method, so called the 3+3 design, is widely accepted by clinicians since it is the easiest to implement and it does not need a statistical calculation. Continual reassessment method (CRM), a design uses Bayesian method, has been rising in popularity in the last two decades. Several variants of the CRM design have also been suggested in numerous statistical literatures. Rolling six is a new method introduced in pediatric oncology in 2008, which claims to shorten the trial duration as compared to the 3+3 design. The goal of the present research was to simulate clinical trials and compare these phase I clinical trial designs. Patient population was created by discrete event simulation (DES) method. The characteristics of the patients were generated by several distributions with the parameters derived from a historical phase I clinical trial data review. Patients were then selected and enrolled in clinical trials, each of which uses the 3+3 design, the rolling six, or the CRM design. Five scenarios of dose-toxicity relationship were used to compare the performance of the phase I clinical trial designs. One thousand trials were simulated per phase I clinical trial design per dose-toxicity scenario. The results showed the rolling six design was not superior to the 3+3 design in terms of trial duration. The time to trial completion was comparable between the rolling six and the 3+3 design. However, they both shorten the duration as compared to the two CRM designs. Both CRMs were superior to the 3+3 design and the rolling six in accuracy of MTD estimation. The 3+3 design and rolling six tended to assign more patients to undesired lower dose levels. The toxicities were slightly greater in the CRMs.^

On Bayesian seamless phase I-II designs

Early phase clinical trial designs have long been the focus of interest for clinicians and statisticians working in oncology field. There are several standard phse I and phase II designs that have been widely-implemented in medical practice. For phase I design, the most commonly used methods are 3+3 and CRM. A newly-developed Bayesian model-based mTPI design has now been used by an increasing number of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. The advantages and disadvantages of these three top phase I designs have been discussed in my work here and their performances were compared using simulated data. It was shown that mTPI design exhibited superior performance in most scenarios in comparison with 3+3 and CRM designs. ^ The next major part of my work is proposing an innovative seamless phase I/II design that allows clinicians to conduct phase I and phase II clinical trials simultaneously. Bayesian framework was implemented throughout the whole design. The phase I portion of the design adopts mTPI method, with the addition of futility rule which monitors the efficacy performance of the tested drugs. Dose graduation rules were proposed in this design to allow doses move forward from phase I portion of the study to phase II portion without interrupting the ongoing phase I dose-finding schema. Once a dose graduated to phase II, adaptive randomization was used to randomly allocated patients into different treatment arms, with the intention of more patients being assigned to receive more promising dose(s). Again simulations were performed to compare the performance of this innovative phase I/II design with a recently published phase I/II design, together with the conventional phase I and phase II designs. The simulation results indicated that the seamless phase I/II design outperform the other two competing methods in most scenarios, with superior trial power and the fact that it requires smaller sample size. It also significantly reduces the overall study time. ^ Similar to other early phase clinical trial designs, the proposed seamless phase I/II design requires that the efficacy and safety outcomes being able to be observed in a short time frame. This limitation can be overcome by using validated surrogate marker for the efficacy and safety endpoints.^

Modified 3+3 design for phase I clinical trials

Phase I clinical trial is mainly designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new drug. Optimization of phase I trial design is crucial to minimize the number of enrolled patients exposed to unsafe dose levels and to provide reliable information to the later phases of clinical trials. Although it has been criticized about its inefficient MTD estimation, nowadays the traditional 3+3 method remains dominant in practice due to its simplicity and conservative estimation. There are many new designs that have been proven to generate more credible MTD estimation, such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). Despite its accepted better performance, the CRM design is still not widely used in real trials. There are several factors that contribute to the difficulties of CRM adaption in practice. First, CRM is not widely accepted by the regulatory agencies such as FDA in terms of safety. It is considered to be less conservative and tend to expose more patients above the MTD level than the traditional design. Second, CRM is relatively complex and not intuitive for the clinicians to fully understand. Third, the CRM method take much more time and need statistical experts and computer programs throughout the trial. The current situation is that the clinicians still tend to follow the trial process that they are comfortable with. This situation is not likely to change in the near future. Based on this situation, we have the motivation to improve the accuracy of MTD selection while follow the procedure of the traditional design to maintain simplicity. We found that in 3+3 method, the dose transition and the MTD determination are relatively independent. Thus we proposed to separate the two stages. The dose transition rule remained the same as 3+3 method. After getting the toxicity information from the dose transition stage, we combined the isotonic transformation to ensure the monotonic increasing order before selecting the optimal MTD. To compare the operating characteristics of the proposed isotonic method and the other designs, we carried out 10,000 simulation trials under different dose setting scenarios to compare the design characteristics of the isotonic modified method with standard 3+3 method, CRM, biased coin design (BC) and k-in-a-row design (KIAW). The isotonic modified method improved MTD estimation of the standard 3+3 in 39 out of 40 scenarios. The improvement is much greater when the target is 0.3 other than 0.25. The modified design is also competitive when comparing with other selected methods. A CRM method performed better in general but was not as stable as the isotonic method throughout the different dose settings. The results demonstrated that our proposed isotonic modified method is not only easily conducted using the same procedure as 3+3 but also outperforms the conventional 3+3 design. It can also be applied to determine MTD for any given TTL. These features make the isotonic modified method of practical value in phase I clinical trials.^