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.

Adaptive designs for Phase I dose-finding studies

Improving methodology for Phase I dose-finding studies is currently of great interest in pharmaceutical and medical research. This article discusses the current atmosphere and attitude towards adaptive designs and focuses on the influence of Bayesian approaches.

Phase I dose-finding study of cabazitaxel administered weekly in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND Cabazitaxel is approved in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. This study evaluated a weekly cabazitaxel dosing regimen. Primary objectives were to report dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics were secondary objectives. METHODS Cabazitaxel was administered weekly (1-hour intravenous infusion at 1.5-12 mg/m2 doses) for the first 4 weeks of a 5-week cycle in patients with solid tumours. Monitoring of DLTs was used to determine the MTD and the recommended weekly dose. RESULTS Thirty-one patients were enrolled. Two of six patients experienced DLTs at 12 mg/m2, which was declared the MTD. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common adverse event. Eight patients developed neutropenia (three ≥ Grade 3); one occurrence of febrile neutropenia was reported. There were two partial responses (in breast cancer) and 13 patients had stable disease (median duration of 3.3 months). Increases in Cmax and AUC0-t were dose proportional for the 6-12 mg/m2 doses. CONCLUSION The MTD of weekly cabazitaxel was 12 mg/m2 and the recommended weekly dose was 10 mg/m2. The observed safety profile and antitumour activity of cabazitaxel were consistent with those observed with other taxanes in similar dosing regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01755390.

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.^

Choosing the number of doses and the cohort size for phase I dose-escalation studies

This paper reviews Bayesian procedures for phase 1 dose-escalation studies and compares different dose schedules and cohort sizes. The methodology described is motivated by the situation of phase 1 dose-escalation studiesin oncology, that is, a single dose administered to each patient, with a single binary response ("toxicity"' or "no toxicity") observed. It is likely that a wider range of applications of the methodology is possible. In this paper, results from 10000-fold simulation runs conducted using the software package Bayesian ADEPT are presented. Four designs were compared under six scenarios. The simulation results indicate that there are slight advantages of having more dose levels and smaller cohort sizes.

A phase I dose-escalation study of the immunocytokine EMD 521873 (Selectikine) in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: EMD 521873 (Selectikine), an immunocytokine comprising a DNA-targeting antibody, aimed at tumour necrosis, fused with a genetically modified interleukin-2 (IL-2) moiety, was investigated in this first-in-human phase I study. METHODS: Patients had metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours failing previous standard therapy. Selectikine was administered as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on 3 consecutive days, every 3weeks. A subgroup of patients also received 300mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide on day 1 of each cycle. Escalating doses of Selectikine were investigated with the primary objective of determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were treated with Selectikine alone at dose levels from 0.075 to 0.9mg/kg, and nine were treated at doses of 0.45 and 0.6mg/kg in combination with cyclophosphamide. A dose-dependent linear increase of peak serum concentrations and area under curve was found. The dose-limiting toxicity was grade 3 skin rash at the 0.9mg/kg dose-level; the MTD was 0.6mg/kg. Rash and flu-like symptoms were the most frequent side-effects. No severe cardiovascular side-effects (hypotension or vascular leak) were observed. At all dose-levels, transient increases in total lymphocyte, eosinophil and monocyte counts were recorded. No objective tumour responses, but long periods of disease stabilisation were observed. Transient and non-neutralising Selectikine antibodies were detected in 69% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of Selectikine with or without cyclophosphamide administered under this schedule was 0.6mg/kg. The recommended phase II dose was 0.45-0.6mg/kg. Selectikine had a favourable safety profile and induced biological effects typical for IL-2.

Somatostatin-based radiotherapy with [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in neuroendocrine tumors: long-term outcome of a phase I dose escalation study

BACKGROUND We describe the long-term outcome after clinical introduction and dose escalation of somatostatin receptor targeted therapy with [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in patients with metastasized neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS In a clinical phase I dose escalation study we treated patients with increasing [90Y-DOTA]-TOC activities. Multivariable Cox regression and competing risk regression were used to compare efficacy and toxicities of the different dosage protocols. RESULTS Overall, 359 patients were recruited; 60 patients were enrolled for low dose (median: 2.4 GBq/cycle, range 0.9-7.8 GBq/cycle), 77 patients were enrolled for intermediate dose (median: 3.3 GBq/cycle, range: 2.0-7.4 GBq/cycle) and 222 patients were enrolled for high dose (median: 6.7 GBq/cycle, range: 3.7-8.1 GBq/cycle) [90Y-DOTA]-TOC treatment. The incidences of hematotoxicities grade 1-4 were 65.0%, 64.9% and 74.8%; the incidences of grade 4/5 kidney toxicities were 8.4%, 6.5% and 14.0%, and the median survival was 39 (range: 1-158) months, 34 (range: 1-118) months and 29 (range: 1-113) months. The high dose protocol was associated with an increased risk of kidney toxicity (Hazard Ratio: 3.12 (1.13-8.59) vs. intermediate dose, p = 0.03) and a shorter overall survival (Hazard Ratio: 2.50 (1.08-5.79) vs. low dose, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Increasing [90Y-DOTA]-TOC activities may be associated with increasing hematological toxicities. The dose related hematotoxicity profile of [90Y-DOTA]-TOC could facilitate tailoring [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in patients with preexisting hematotoxicities. The results of the long-term outcome suggest that fractionated [90Y-DOTA]-TOC treatment might allow to reduce renal toxicity and to improve overall survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00978211).

A Bayesian approach for dose-escalation in a phase I clinical trial incorporating pharmacodynamic endpoints

Bayesian decision procedures have already been proposed for and implemented in Phase I dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers. The procedures have been based on pharmacokinetic responses reflecting the concentration of the drug in blood plasma and are conducted to learn about the dose-response relationship while avoiding excessive concentrations. However, in many dose-escalation studies, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as heart rate or blood pressure are observed, and it is these that should be used to control dose-escalation. These endpoints introduce additional complexity into the modeling of the problem relative to pharmacokinetic responses. Firstly, there are responses available following placebo administrations. Secondly, the pharmacodynamic responses are related directly to measurable plasma concentrations, which in turn are related to dose. Motivated by experience of data from a real study conducted in a conventional manner, this paper presents and evaluates a Bayesian procedure devised for the simultaneous monitoring of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic responses. Account is also taken of the incidence of adverse events. Following logarithmic transformations, a linear model is used to relate dose to the pharmacokinetic endpoint and a quadratic model to relate the latter to the pharmacodynamic endpoint. A logistic model is used to relate the pharmacokinetic endpoint to the risk of an adverse event.

Idarubicin-loaded beads for chemoembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the IDASPHERE phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase I dose-escalation trial of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) with idarubicin-loaded beads was performed in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). AIM: To estimate the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and to assess safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and quality of life. METHODS: Patients received a single TACE session with injection of 2 mL drug-eluting beads (DEBs; DC Bead 300-500 μm) loaded with idarubicin. The idarubicin dose was escalated according to a modified continuous reassessment method. MTD was defined as the dose level closest to that causing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 20% of patients. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, including nine patients at 5 mg, six patients at 10 mg, and six patients at 15 mg. One patient at each dose level experienced DLT (acute myocardial infarction, hyperbilirubinaemia and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) at 5-, 10- and 15-mg, respectively). The calculated MTD of idarubicin was 10 mg. The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events were pain, elevated AST, elevated γ-glutamyltranspeptidase and thrombocytopenia. At 2 months, the objective response rate was 52% (complete response, 28%, and partial response, 24%) by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. The median time to progression was 12.1 months (95% CI 7.4 months - not reached); the median overall survival was 24.5 months (95% CI 14.7 months - not reached). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated the ability of DEBs to release idarubicin slowly. CONCLUSIONS: Using drug-eluting beads, the maximum-tolerated dose of idarubicin was 10 mg per TACE session. Encouraging responses and median time to progression were observed. Further clinical investigations are warranted (NCT01040559).

Factores asociados a la infección para Clostridium difficile en un hospital universitario de Bogotá

Introducción La infección por Clostridium difficile, es una de las causas más frecuentes de diarrea nosocomial con una alta morbimortalidad, con un aumento exponencial en su incidencia, en Estados Unidos se duplicó, de 261 casos x 100.000 en 1993 pasó a 546 x 100.000 en 2003 2, y en Canadá se encontraron datos similares con un aumento de 4.5 veces, en 1991 de 35.6 casos x 100.000 a 156.3 casos por 100.000 en 2004 3 . Se han descrito varios factores asociados Materiales y Métodos Se trata de un estudio descriptivo de tipo serie de casos en el que se evaluaron pacientes con diagnóstico de infección por C. Difficile y los factores asociados en un Hospital Universitario entre febrero de 2010 hasta septiembre de 2011 Resultados Se recolectaron 31 pacientes la edad promedio fue de 58 años con un rango entre 18 y 93 años, de los cuales 19 (61%) fueron mujeres y 12 (39%) hombres. El factor asociado a la infección por C. Difficile más frecuentemente encontrado fue el uso de inhibidores de bomba de protones con 54.84% (n=17) .No se encontraron pacientes VIH positivos o con diagnóstico de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. Ningún paciente presentó complicaciones asociadas a la infección ni mortalidad alguna. Conclusión El factor asociado que más se presentó fue el uso de antimicrobianos en los quince dias previos al inicio del cuadro en el 74% de los pacientes lo que coincide con lo presentado en la literatura mundial.

Compositional ideas in the bayesian analysis of categorical data with application to dose finding clinical trials

Compositional random vectors are fundamental tools in the Bayesian analysis of categorical data.Many of the issues that are discussed with reference to the statistical analysis of compositionaldata have a natural counterpart in the construction of a Bayesian statistical model for categoricaldata.This note builds on the idea of cross-fertilization of the two areas recommended by Aitchison (1986)in his seminal book on compositional data. Particular emphasis is put on the problem of whatparameterization to use

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial.

BACKGROUND: Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients. METHODS: We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid β (Aβ)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759). FINDINGS: 89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Safety and immunogenicity of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Ebola vaccine in healthy adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Ebola outbreak led to accelerated efforts to test vaccine candidates. On the basis of a request by WHO, we aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the monovalent, recombinant, chimpanzee adenovirus type-3 vector-based Ebola Zaire vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z). METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a trial at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants (aged 18-65 years) were randomly assigned (2:2:1), via two computer-generated randomisation lists for individuals potentially deployed in endemic areas and those not deployed, to receive a single intramuscular dose of high-dose vaccine (5 × 10(10) viral particles), low-dose vaccine (2·5 × 10(10) viral particles), or placebo. Deployed participants were allocated to only the vaccine groups. Group allocation was concealed from non-deployed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. The safety evaluation was not masked for potentially deployed participants, who were therefore not included in the safety analysis for comparison between the vaccine doses and placebo, but were pooled with the non-deployed group to compare immunogenicity. The main objectives were safety and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02289027. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2014, and June 22, 2015, we randomly assigned 120 participants, of whom 18 (15%) were potentially deployed and 102 (85%) were non-deployed, to receive high-dose vaccine (n=49), low-dose vaccine (n=51), or placebo (n=20). Participants were followed up for 6 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. We recorded local adverse events in 30 (75%) of 40 participants in the high-dose group, 33 (79%) of 42 participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) of 20 participants in the placebo group. Fatigue or malaise was the most common systemic adverse event, reported in 25 (62%) participants in the high-dose group, 25 (60%) participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) participants in the placebo group, followed by headache, reported in 23 (57%), 25 (60%), and three (15%) participants, respectively. Fever occurred 24 h after injection in 12 (30%) participants in the high-dose group and 11 (26%) participants in the low-dose group versus one (5%) participant in the placebo group. Geometric mean concentrations of IgG antibodies against Ebola glycoprotein peaked on day 28 at 51 μg/mL (95% CI 41·1-63·3) in the high-dose group, 44·9 μg/mL (25·8-56·3) in the low-dose group, and 5·2 μg/mL (3·5-7·6) in the placebo group, with respective response rates of 96% (95% CI 85·7-99·5), 96% (86·5-99·5), and 5% (0·1-24·9). Geometric mean concentrations decreased by day 180 to 25·5 μg/mL (95% CI 20·6-31·5) in the high-dose group, 22·1 μg/mL (19·3-28·6) in the low-dose group, and 3·2 μg/mL (2·4-4·9) in the placebo group. 28 (57%) participants given high-dose vaccine and 31 (61%) participants given low-dose vaccine developed glycoprotein-specific CD4 cell responses, and 33 (67%) and 35 (69%), respectively, developed CD8 responses. INTERPRETATION: ChAd3-EBO-Z was safe and well tolerated, although mild to moderate systemic adverse events were common. A single dose was immunogenic in almost all vaccine recipients. Antibody responses were still significantly present at 6 months. There was no significant difference between doses for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. This acceptable safety profile provides a reliable basis to proceed with phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials in Africa. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), through the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.