BAYESIAN PHASE I DOSE FINDING IN CANCER TRIALS

This dissertation explores phase I dose-finding designs in cancer trials from three perspectives: the alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules, a design based on a time-to-dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) model, and a design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model. We list alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules and perform a simulation study for the intra-rule and inter-rule comparisons based on two statistical models to identify the most appropriate rule under certain scenarios. We provide evidence that all the Bayesian rules outperform the traditional ``3+3'' design in the allocation of patients and selection of the maximum tolerated dose. The design based on a time-to-DLT model uses patients' DLT information over multiple treatment cycles in estimating the probability of DLT at the end of treatment cycle 1. Dose-escalation decisions are made whenever a cycle-1 DLT occurs, or two months after the previous check point. Compared to the design based on a logistic regression model, the new design shows more safety benefits for trials in which more late-onset toxicities are expected. As a trade-off, the new design requires more patients on average. The design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model has three important attributes: (1) Toxicities are categorized over a distribution of severity levels, (2) Early toxicity may inform dose escalation, and (3) No suspension is required between accrual cohorts. The proposed model accounts for the difference in the importance of the toxicity severity levels and for transitions between toxicity levels. We compare the operating characteristics of the proposed design with those from a similar design based on a fully-evaluated model that directly models the maximum observed toxicity level within the patients' entire assessment window. We describe settings in which, under comparable power, the proposed design shortens the trial. The proposed design offers more benefit compared to the alternative design as patient accrual becomes slower.

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.^