Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs

We present an adaptive Bayesian method for dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials based on trade-offs between the probabilities of treatment efficacy and toxicity. The method accommodates either trinary or bivariate binary outcomes, as well as efficacy probabilities that possibly are nonmonotone in dose. Doses are selected for successive patient cohorts based on a set of efficacy-toxicity trade-off contours that partition the two-dimensional outcome probability domain. Priors are established by solving for hyperparameters that optimize the fit of the model to elicited mean outcome probabilities. For trinary outcomes, the new algorithm is compared to the method of Thall and Russell (1998, Biometrics 54, 251-264) by application to a trial of rapid treatment for ischemic stroke. The bivariate binary outcome case is illustrated by a trial of graft-versus-host disease treatment in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Computer simulations show that, under a wide rage of dose-outcome scenarios, the new method has high probabilities of making correct decisions and treats most patients at doses with desirable efficacy-toxicity trade-offs.     

Utility‐Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials

Summary An outcome‐adaptive Bayesian design is proposed for choosing the optimal dose pair of a chemotherapeutic agent and a biological agent used in combination in a phase I/II clinical trial. Patient outcome is characterized as a vector of two ordinal variables accounting for toxicity and treatment efficacy. A generalization of the Aranda‐Ordaz model (1981, Biometrika 68 , 357–363) is used for the marginal outcome probabilities as functions of a dose pair, and a Gaussian copula is assumed to obtain joint distributions. Numerical utilities of all elementary patient outcomes, allowing the possibility that efficacy is inevaluable due to severe toxicity, are obtained using an elicitation method aimed to establish consensus among the physicians planning the trial. For each successive patient cohort, a dose pair is chosen to maximize the posterior mean utility. The method is illustrated by a trial in bladder cancer, including simulation studies of the method's sensitivity to prior parameters, the numerical utilities, correlation between the outcomes, sample size, cohort size, and starting dose pair.     

Patient-specific dose finding based on bivariate outcomes and covariates

SUMMARY: A Bayesian sequential dose-finding procedure based on bivariate (efficacy, toxicity) outcomes that accounts for patient covariates and dose-covariate interactions is presented. Historical data are used to obtain an informative prior on covariate main effects, with uninformative priors assumed for all dose effect parameters. Elicited limits on the probabilities of efficacy and toxicity for each of a representative set of covariate vectors are used to construct bounding functions that determine the acceptability of each dose for each patient. Elicited outcome probability pairs that are equally desirable for a reference patient are used to define two different posterior criteria, either of which may be used to select an optimal covariate-specific dose for each patient. Because the dose selection criteria are covariate specific, different patients may receive different doses at the same point in the trial, and the set of eligible patients may change adaptively during the trial. The method is illustrated by a dose-finding trial in acute leukemia, including a simulation study.     

Risk‐Group‐Specific Dose Finding Based on an Average Toxicity Score

Summary We propose a Bayesian dose‐finding design that accounts for two important factors, the severity of toxicity and heterogeneity in patients' susceptibility to toxicity. We consider toxicity outcomes with various levels of severity and define appropriate scores for these severity levels. We then use a multinomial‐likelihood function and a Dirichlet prior to model the probabilities of these toxicity scores at each dose, and characterize the overall toxicity using an average toxicity score (ATS) parameter. To address the issue of heterogeneity in patients' susceptibility to toxicity, we categorize patients into different risk groups based on their susceptibility. A Bayesian isotonic transformation is applied to induce an order‐restricted posterior inference on the ATS. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed dose‐finding design using simulations based on a clinical trial in multiple myeloma.     

A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents

Summary .  Two-agent combination trials have recently attracted enormous attention in oncology research. There are several strong motivations for combining different agents in a treatment: to induce the synergistic treatment effect, to increase the dose intensity with nonoverlapping toxicities, and to target different tumor cell susceptibilities. To accommodate this growing trend in clinical trials, we propose a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding based on latent 2 × 2 tables. In the search for the maximum tolerated dose combination, we continuously update the posterior estimates for the unknown parameters associated with marginal probabilities and the correlation parameter based on the data from successive patients. By reordering the dose toxicity probabilities in the two-dimensional space, we assign each coming cohort of patients to the most appropriate dose combination. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed method under various practical scenarios. Finally, we illustrate our dose-finding procedure with a clinical trial of agent combinations at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.     

Adaptive Randomization for Multiarm Comparative Clinical Trials Based on Joint Efficacy/Toxicity Outcomes

Summary .  We present an outcome-adaptive randomization (AR) scheme for comparative clinical trials in which the primary endpoint is a joint efficacy/toxicity outcome. Under the proposed scheme, the randomization probabilities are unbalanced adaptively in favor of treatments with superior joint outcomes characterized by higher efficacy and lower toxicity. This type of scheme is advantageous from the patients' perspective because on average, more patients are randomized to superior treatments. We extend the approximate Bayesian time-to-event model in Cheung and Thall (2002,  Biometrics   58, 89–97) to model the joint efficacy/toxicity outcomes and perform posterior computation based on a latent variable approach. Consequently, this allows us to incorporate essential information about patients with incomplete follow-up. Based on the computed posterior probabilities, we propose an AR scheme that favors the treatments with larger joint probabilities of efficacy and no toxicity. We illustrate our methodology with a leukemia trial that compares three treatments in terms of their 52-week molecular remission rates and 52-week toxicity rates.     

A utility approach to individualized optimal dose selection using biomarkers

In many settings, including oncology, increasing the dose of treatment results in both increased efficacy and toxicity. With the increasing availability of validated biomarkers and prediction models, there is the potential for individualized dosing based on patient specific factors. We consider the setting where there is an existing dataset of patients treated with heterogenous doses and including binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes and patient factors such as clinical features and biomarkers. The goal is to analyze the data to estimate an optimal dose for each (future) patient based on their clinical features and biomarkers. We propose an optimal individualized dose finding rule by maximizing utility functions for individual patients while limiting the rate of toxicity. The utility is defined as a weighted combination of efficacy and toxicity probabilities. This approach maximizes overall efficacy at a prespecified constraint on overall toxicity. We model the binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes using logistic regression with dose, biomarkers and dose–biomarker interactions. To incorporate the large number of potential parameters, we use the LASSO method. We additionally constrain the dose effect to be non-negative for both efficacy and toxicity for all patients. Simulation studies show that the utility approach combined with any of the modeling methods can improve efficacy without increasing toxicity relative to fixed dosing. The proposed methods are illustrated using a dataset of patients with lung cancer treated with radiation therapy.     

A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies

The use of multiple drugs in a single clinical trial or as a therapeutic strategy has become common, particularly in the treatment of cancer. Because traditional trials are designed to evaluate one agent at a time, the evaluation of therapies in combination requires specialized trial designs. In place of the traditional separate phase I and II trials, we propose using a parallel phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate simultaneously the safety and efficacy of combination dose levels, and select the optimal combination dose. The trial is started with an initial period of dose escalation, then patients are randomly assigned to admissible dose levels. These dose levels are compared with each other. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used in the randomization to adaptively assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels. Combination doses with lower efficacy are temporarily closed and those with intolerable toxicity are eliminated from the trial. The trial is stopped if the posterior probability for safety, efficacy, or futility crosses a prespecified boundary. For illustration, we apply the design to a combination chemotherapy trial for leukemia. We use simulation studies to assess the operating characteristics of the parallel phase I/II trial design, and compare it to a conventional design for a standard phase I and phase II trial. The simulations show that the proposed design saves sample size, has better power, and efficiently assigns more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels.     

Dose-Finding Based on Bivariate Efficacy-Toxicity Outcome Using Archimedean Copula

In dose-finding clinical study, it is common that multiple endpoints are of interest. For instance, efficacy and toxicity endpoints are both primary in clinical trials. In this article, we propose a joint model for correlated efficacy-toxicity outcome constructed with Archimedean Copula, and extend the continual reassessment method (CRM) to a bivariate trial design in which the optimal dose for phase III is based on both efficacy and toxicity. Specially, considering numerous cases that continuous and discrete outcomes are observed in drug study, we will extend our joint model to mixed correlated outcomes. We demonstrate through simulations that our algorithm based on Archimedean Copula model has excellent operating characteristics.     

A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial

In this article, we propose a Bayesian approach to phase I/II dose-finding oncology trials by jointly modeling a binary toxicity outcome and a continuous biomarker expression outcome. We apply our method to a clinical trial of a new gene therapy for bladder cancer patients. In this trial, the biomarker expression indicates biological activity of the new therapy. For ethical reasons, the trial is conducted sequentially, with the dose for each successive patient chosen using both toxicity and activity data from patients previously treated in the trial. The modeling framework that we use naturally incorporates correlation between the binary toxicity and continuous activity outcome via a latent Gaussian variable. The dose-escalation/de-escalation decision rules are based on the posterior distributions of both toxicity and activity. A flexible state-space model is used to relate the activity outcome and dose. Extensive simulation studies show that the design reliably chooses the preferred dose using both toxicity and expression outcomes under various clinical scenarios.     

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.     

An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes

This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decision-making is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design's performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.     

Monitoring late-onset toxicities in phase I trials using predicted risks

Late-onset (LO) toxicities are a serious concern in many phase I trials. Since most dose-limiting toxicities occur soon after therapy begins, most dose-finding methods use a binary indicator of toxicity occurring within a short initial time period. If an agent causes LO toxicities, however, an undesirably large number of patients may be treated at toxic doses before any toxicities are observed. A method addressing this problem is the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM, Cheung and Chappell, 2000). We propose a Bayesian dose-finding method similar to the TITE-CRM in which doses are chosen using time-to-toxicity data. The new aspect of our method is a set of rules, based on predictive probabilities, that temporarily suspend accrual if the risk of toxicity at prospective doses for future patients is unacceptably high. If additional follow-up data reduce the predicted risk of toxicity to an acceptable level, then accrual is restarted, and this process may be repeated several times during the trial. A simulation study shows that the proposed method provides a greater degree of safety than the TITE-CRM, while still reliably choosing the preferred dose. This advantage increases with accrual rate, but the price of this additional safety is that the trial takes longer to complete on average.     

Adaptive decision making in a lymphocyte infusion trial

We describe an adaptive Bayesian design for a clinical trial of an experimental treatment for patients with hematologic malignancies who initially received an allogeneic bone marrow transplant but subsequently suffered a disease recurrence. Treatment consists of up to two courses of targeted immunotherapy followed by allogeneic donor lymphocyte infusion. The immunotherapy is a necessary precursor to the lymphocyte infusion, but it may cause severe liver toxicity and is certain to cause a low white blood cell count and low platelets. The primary scientific goal is to determine the infusion time that has the highest probability of treatment success, defined as the event that the patient does not suffer severe toxicity and is alive with recovered white blood cell count 50 days from the start of therapy. The method is based on a parametric model accounting for toxicity, time to white blood cell recovery, and survival time. The design includes an algorithm for between-patient immunotherapy dose de-escalation based on the toxicity data and an adaptive randomization among five possible infusion times according to their most recent posterior success probabilities. A simulation study shows that the design reliably selects the best infusion time while randomizing greater proportions of patients to superior infusion times.     

Monitoring futility and efficacy in phase II trials with Bayesian posterior distributions—A calibration approach

A multistage single arm phase II trial with binary endpoint is considered. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used to monitor futility in interim analyses and efficacy in the final analysis. For a beta‐binomial model, decision rules based on Bayesian posterior probabilities are converted to “traditional” decision rules in terms of number of responders among patients observed so far. Analytical derivations are given for the probability of stopping for futility and for the probability to declare efficacy. A workflow is presented on how to select the parameters specifying the Bayesian design, and the operating characteristics of the design are investigated. It is outlined how the presented approach can be transferred to statistical models other than the beta‐binomial model.     

Corticosteroids in the prevention and treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults: meta-analysis

Objective To systematically review the efficacy of steroids in the prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in critically ill adults, and treatment for established ARDS.Data sources Search of randomised controlled trials (1966-April 2007) of PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, health technology assessment database, and database of abstracts of reviews of effects.Data extraction Two investigators independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data into standardised forms; differences were resolved by consensus.Data synthesis Steroid efficacy was assessed through a Bayesian hierarchical model for comparing the odds of developing ARDS and mortality (both expressed as odds ratio with 95% credible interval) and duration of ventilator free days, assessed as mean difference. Bayesian outcome probabilities were calculated as the probability that the odds ratio would be ≥1 or the probability that the mean difference would be ≥0. Nine randomised trials using variable dose and duration of steroids were identified. Preventive steroids (four studies) were associated with a trend to increase both the odds of patients developing ARDS (odds ratio 1.55, 95% credible interval 0.58 to 4.05; P(odds ratio ≥1)=86.6%), and the risk of mortality in those who subsequently developed ARDS (three studies, odds ratio 1.52, 95% credible interval 0.30 to 5.94; P(odds ratio ≥1)=72.8%). Steroid administration after onset of ARDS (five studies) was associated with a trend towards reduction in mortality (odds ratio 0.62, 95% credible interval 0.23 to 1.26; P(odds ratio ≥1)=6.8%). Steroid therapy increased the number of ventilator free days compared with controls (three studies, mean difference 4.05 days, 95% credible interval 0.22 to 8.71; P(mean difference ≥0)=97.9%). Steroids were not associated with increase in risk of infection.Conclusions A definitive role of corticosteroids in the treatment of ARDS in adults is not established. A possibility of reduced mortality and increased ventilator free days with steroids started after the onset of ARDS was suggested. Preventive steroids possibly increase the incidence of ARDS in critically ill adults.     

The Analysis of Correlated Binary Outcomes Using Multivariate Logistic Regression

A method for analyzing correlated binary outcomes when the responses are distinct measurements made simultaneously on a single individual is presented. This extension of univariate logistic regression allows us to model the dependence of the responses on a set of covariates while estimating the degree of association among them. For the case of two dichotomous outcomes, a form of the cumulative bivariate logistic distribution proposed by Gumbel is used to characterize their joint probabilities in terms of logistic marginal probabilities and the correlation coefficient of the responses. The model is then extended to accommodate three or more dichotomous outcomes. A two-step approximation to fitting the multivariate logistic model is also described.     

A Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to incorporate preclinical information into phase I oncology trials

Leveraging preclinical animal data for a phase I oncology trial is appealing yet challenging. In this paper, we use animal data to improve decision-making in a model-based dose-escalation procedure. We make a proposal for how to measure and address a prior-data conflict in a sequential study with a small sample size. Animal data are incorporated via a robust two-component mixture prior for the parameters of the human dose–toxicity relationship. The weights placed on each component of the prior are chosen empirically and updated dynamically as the trial progresses and more data accrue. After completion of each cohort, we use a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to evaluate the predictive utility of the animal data for the observed human toxicity outcomes, reflecting the degree of agreement between dose–toxicity relationships in animals and humans. The proposed methodology is illustrated through several data examples and an extensive simulation study.     

A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials

Consider the problem of finding the dose that is as high as possible subject to having a controlled rate of toxicity. The problem is commonplace in oncology Phase I clinical trials. Such a dose is often called the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) since it represents a necessary trade-off between efficacy and toxicity. The continual reassessment method (CRM) is an improvement over traditional up-and-down schemes for estimating the MTD. It is based on a Bayesian approach and on the assumption that the dose-toxicity relationship follows a specific response curve, e.g., the logistic or power curve. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the assumption of a specific curve used in the CRM is not necessary and can actually hinder the efficient use of prior inputs. An alternative curve-free method in which the probabilities of toxicity are modeled directly as an unknown multidimensional parameter is presented. To that purpose, a product-of-beta prior (PBP) is introduced and shown to bring about logical improvements. Practical improvements are illustrated by simulation results.     

Evaluating the Impact of Prior Assumptions in Bayesian Biostatistics

A common concern in Bayesian data analysis is that an inappropriately informative prior may unduly influence posterior inferences. In the context of Bayesian clinical trial design, well chosen priors are important to ensure that posterior-based decision rules have good frequentist properties. However, it is difficult to quantify prior information in all but the most stylized models. This issue may be addressed by quantifying the prior information in terms of a number of hypothetical patients, i.e., a prior effective sample size (ESS). Prior ESS provides a useful tool for understanding the impact of prior assumptions. For example, the prior ESS may be used to guide calibration of prior variances and other hyperprior parameters. In this paper, we discuss such prior sensitivity analyses by using a recently proposed method to compute a prior ESS. We apply this in several typical settings of Bayesian biomedical data analysis and clinical trial design. The data analyses include cross-tabulated counts, multiple correlated diagnostic tests, and ordinal outcomes using a proportional-odds model. The study designs include a phase I trial with late-onset toxicities, a phase II trial that monitors event times, and a phase I/II trial with dose-finding based on efficacy and toxicity.