A Bayesian phase 2 model based adaptive design to optimise antivenom dosing: Application to a dose-finding trial for a novel Russell’s viper antivenom in Myanmar

For most antivenoms there is little information from clinical studies to infer the relationship between dose and efficacy or dose and toxicity. Antivenom dose-finding studies usually recruit too few patients (e.g. fewer than 20) relative to clinically significant event rates (e.g. 5%). Model based adaptive dose-finding studies make efficient use of accrued patient data by using information across dosing levels, and converge rapidly to the contextually defined ‘optimal dose’. Adequate sample sizes for adaptive dose-finding trials can be determined by simulation. We propose a model based, Bayesian phase 2 type, adaptive clinical trial design for the characterisation of optimal initial antivenom doses in contexts where both efficacy and toxicity are measured as binary endpoints. This design is illustrated in the context of dose-finding for Daboia siamensis (Eastern Russell’s viper) envenoming in Myanmar. The design formalises the optimal initial dose of antivenom as the dose closest to that giving a pre-specified desired efficacy, but resulting in less than a pre-specified maximum toxicity. For Daboia siamensis envenoming, efficacy is defined as the restoration of blood coagulability within six hours, and toxicity is defined as anaphylaxis. Comprehensive simulation studies compared the expected behaviour of the model based design to a simpler rule based design (a modified ‘3+3’ design). The model based design can identify an optimal dose after fewer patients relative to the rule based design. Open source code for the simulations is made available in order to determine adequate sample sizes for future adaptive snakebite trials. Antivenom dose-finding trials would benefit from using standard model based adaptive designs. Dose-finding trials where rare events (e.g. 5% occurrence) are of clinical importance necessitate larger sample sizes than current practice. We will apply the model based design to determine a safe and efficacious dose for a novel lyophilised antivenom to treat Daboia siamensis envenoming in Myanmar.     

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.     

Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer

This paper looks at a new approach to the design and analysis of Phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. The basic idea and motivation behind the approach stem from an attempt to reconcile the needs of dose-finding experimentation with the ethical demands of established medical practice. It is argued that for these trials the particular shape of the dose toxicity curve is of little interest. Attention focuses rather on identifying a dose with a given targeted toxicity level and on concentrating experimentation at that which all current available evidence indicates to be the best estimate of this level. Such an approach not only makes an explicit attempt to meet ethical requirements but also enables the use of models whose only requirements are that locally (i.e., around the dose corresponding to the targeted toxicity level) they reasonably well approximate the true probability of toxic response. Although a large number of models could be contemplated, we look at a particularly simple one. Extensive simulations show the model to have real promise.     

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.     

Using a dose-finding benchmark to quantify the loss incurred by dichotomization in Phase II dose-ranging studies

While there is recognition that more informative clinical endpoints can support better decision-making in clinical trials, it remains a common practice to categorize endpoints originally measured on a continuous scale. The primary motivation for this categorization (and most commonly dichotomization) is the simplicity of the analysis. There is, however, a long argument that this simplicity can come at a high cost. Specifically, larger sample sizes are needed to achieve the same level of accuracy when using a dichotomized outcome instead of the original continuous endpoint. The degree of “loss of information” has been studied in the contexts of parallel-group designs and two-stage Phase II trials. Limited attention, however, has been given to the quantification of the associated losses in dose-ranging trials. In this work, we propose an approach to estimate the associated losses in Phase II dose-ranging trials that is free of the actual dose-ranging design used and depends on the clinical setting only. The approach uses the notion of a nonparametric optimal benchmark for dose-finding trials, an evaluation tool that facilitates the assessment of a dose-finding design by providing an upper bound on its performance under a given scenario in terms of the probability of the target dose selection. After demonstrating how the benchmark can be applied to Phase II dose-ranging trials, we use it to quantify the dichotomization losses. Using parameters from real clinical trials in various therapeutic areas, it is found that the ratio of sample sizes needed to obtain the same precision using continuous and binary (dichotomized) endpoints varies between 70% and 75% under the majority of scenarios but can drop to 50% in some cases.     

Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials

Phase I trials of cytotoxic agents in oncology are usually dose-finding studies that involve a single cytotoxic agent. Many statistical methods have been proposed for these trials, all of which are based on the assumption of a monotonic dose-toxicity curve. For single-agent trials, this is a valid assumption. In many trials, however, investigators are interested in finding the maximally tolerated dose based on escalating multiple cytotoxic agents. When there are multiple agents, monotonicity of the dose-toxicity curve is not clearly defined. In this article we present a design for phase I trials in which the toxicity probabilities follow a partial order, meaning that there are pairs of treatments for which the ordering of the toxicity probabilities is not known at the start of the trial. We compare the new design to existing methods for simple orders and investigate the properties of the design for two partial orders.     

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.     

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.     

Continual reassessment method for partial ordering

Summary Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A fundamental assumption of these methods is monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve. This is a reasonable assumption for single‐agent trials in which the administration of greater doses of the agent can be expected to produce dose‐limiting toxicities in increasing proportions of patients. When studying multiple agents, the assumption may not hold because the ordering of the toxicity probabilities could possibly be unknown for several of the available drug combinations. At the same time, some of the orderings are known and so we describe the whole situation as that of a partial ordering. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional dose‐finding method for multiple‐agent trials that simplifies to the continual reassessment method (CRM), introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46 , 33–48), when the ordering is fully known. This design enables us to relax the assumption of a monotonic dose–toxicity curve. We compare our approach and some simulation results to a CRM design in which the ordering is known as well as to other suggestions for partial orders.     

Dose-Finding Designs for HIV Studies

We present a class of simple designs that can be used in early dose-finding studies in HIV. Such designs, in contrast with Phase I designs in cancer, have a lot of the Phase II flavor about them. Information on efficacy is obtained during the trial and is as important as that relating to toxicity. The designs proposed here sequentially incorporate the information obtained on viral reduction. Initial doses are given from some fixed range of dose regimens. The doses are ordered in terms of their toxic potential. At any dose, a patient can have one of three outcomes: inability to take the treatment (toxicity), ability to take the treatment but insufficient reduction in viral load (viral failure), and ability to take the treatment as well as a sufficient reduction of viral load (success). A clear goal for some class of designs would be the identification of the dose leading to the greatest percentage of successes. Under certain assumptions, which we identify and discuss, we can obtain efficient designs for this task. Under weaker, sometimes more realistic assumptions, we can still obtain designs that have good operating characteristics in identifying a level, if such a level exists, having some given or greater success rate. In the absence of such a level, the designs will come to an early closure, indicating the ineffectiveness of the new treatment.     

Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios

A Bayesian adaptive design is proposed for dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials to incorporate the bivariate outcomes, toxicity and efficacy, of a new treatment. Without specifying any parametric functional form for the drug dose-response curve, we jointly model the bivariate binary data to account for the correlation between toxicity and efficacy. After observing all the responses of each cohort of patients, the dosage for the next cohort is escalated, deescalated, or unchanged according to the proposed odds ratio criteria constructed from the posterior toxicity and efficacy probabilities. A novel class of prior distributions is proposed through logit transformations which implicitly imposes a monotonic constraint on dose toxicity probabilities and correlates the probabilities of the bivariate outcomes. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Under various scenarios, the new Bayesian design based on the toxicity-efficacy odds ratio trade-offs exhibits good properties and treats most patients at the desirable dose levels. The method is illustrated with a real trial design for a breast medical oncology study.     

Designs for phase I clinical trials with multiple courses of subjects at different doses

Summary .   The goal of this article is to provide a new design framework and its corresponding estimation for phase I trials. Existing phase I designs assign each subject to one dose level based on responses from previous subjects. Yet it is possible that subjects with neither toxicity nor efficacy responses can be treated at higher dose levels, and their subsequent responses to higher doses will provide more information. In addition, for some trials, it might be possible to obtain multiple responses (repeated measures) from a subject at different dose levels. In this article, a nonparametric estimation method is developed for such studies. We also explore how the designs of multiple doses per subject can be implemented to improve design efficiency. The gain of efficiency from "single dose per subject" to "multiple doses per subject" is evaluated for several scenarios. Our numerical study shows that using "multiple doses per subject" and the proposed estimation method together increases the efficiency substantially.     

Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space

The objective of a Phase I trial with two agents is to find a set of maximum-tolerated dose combinations that yield a prespecified toxicity rate. In this article, we consider the case where several doses of one agent are fixed and the goal is to find the maximum-tolerated dose of the other agent to be used in combination with each of the doses of agent one. We propose a Bayesian design that uses a parsimonious working model for the dose-toxicity relationship. We show that the new design is more effective in identifying the maximum-tolerated combinations than one-dimensional designs applied at each dose level of one of the agents.     

Cancer phase I trial design using drug combinations when a fraction of dose limiting toxicities is attributable to one or more agents

Drug combination trials are increasingly common nowadays in clinical research. However, very few methods have been developed to consider toxicity attributions in the dose escalation process. We are motivated by a trial in which the clinician is able to identify certain toxicities that can be attributed to one of the agents. We present a Bayesian adaptive design in which toxicity attributions are modeled via copula regression and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) curve is estimated as a function of model parameters. The dose escalation algorithm uses cohorts of two patients, following the continual reassessment method (CRM) scheme, where at each stage of the trial, we search for the dose of one agent given the current dose of the other agent. The performance of the design is studied by evaluating its operating characteristics when the underlying model is either correctly specified or misspecified. We show that this method can be extended to accommodate discrete dose combinations.     

A new dose-finding design for bivariate outcomes

For some drugs, toxicity events lead to early termination of treatment before a therapeutic response is observed. That is, there are three possible outcomes: toxicity (therapeutic response unknown), therapeutic response without toxicity, and no response with no toxicity. The optimal dose is the dose that maximizes the probability of the joint event, response, and no toxicity. The optimal safe dose is the dose, from among the doses with toxicity rate less than the maximum tolerable level, that maximizes the probability of response and no toxicity. We present a new sequential design to maximize the number of subjects assigned in the neighborhood of the optimal safe dose in a dose-finding trial with two outcomes.     

Biomarker-based precision dose finding for immunotherapy combined with radiotherapy

Recent success of sequential administration of immunotherapy following radiotherapy (RT), often referred to as immunoRT, has sparked the urgent need for novel clinical trial designs to accommodate the unique features of immunoRT. For this purpose, we propose a Bayesian phase I/II design for immunotherapy administered after standard-dose RT to identify the optimal dose that is personalized for each patient according to his/her measurements of PD-L1 expression at baseline and post-RT. We model the immune response, toxicity, and efficacy as functions of dose and patient's baseline and post-RT PD-L1 expression profile. We quantify the desirability of the dose using a utility function and propose a two-stage dose-finding algorithm to find the personalized optimal dose. Simulation studies show that our proposed design has good operating characteristics, with a high probability of identifying the personalized optimal dose.     

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.     

Retrospective analysis of sequential dose-finding designs

The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a dose-finding design using a dynamic sequential updating scheme. In common with other dynamic schemes the method estimates a current dose level corresponding to some target percentile for experimentation. The estimate is based on all included subjects. This continual reevaluation is made possible by the use of a simple model. As it stands, neither the CRM, nor any of the other dynamic schemes, allow for the correct estimation of some target percentile, based on retrospective data apart from the exceptional situation in which the simplified model exactly generates the observations. In this article we focus on the very specific issue of retrospective analysis of data generated by some arbitrary mechanism and subsequently analyzed via the continual reassessment method. We show how this can be done consistently. The proposed methodology is not restricted to that particular design and is applicable to any sequential updating scheme in which dose levels are associated with percentiles via model inversion.     

Two-stage designs for dose-finding trials with a biologic endpoint using stepwise tests

Summary.   We deal with the design problem of early phase dose-finding clinical trials with monotone biologic endpoints, such as biological measurements, laboratory values of serum level, and gene expression. A specific objective of this type of trial is to identify the minimum dose that exhibits adequate drug activity and shifts the mean of the endpoint from a zero dose to the so-called minimum effective dose. Stepwise test procedures for dose finding have been well studied in the context of nonhuman studies where the sampling plan is done in one stage. In this article, we extend the notion of stepwise testing to a two-stage enrollment plan in an attempt to reduce the potential sample size requirement by shutting down unpromising doses in a futility interim. In particular, we examine four two-stage designs and apply them to design a statin trial with four doses and a placebo in patients with Hodgkin's disease. We discuss the calibration of the design parameters and the implementation of these proposed methods. In the context of the statin trial, a calibrated two-stage design can reduce the average total sample size up to 38% (from 125 to 78) from a one-stage step-down test, while maintaining comparable error rates and probability of correct selection. The price for the reduction in the average sample size is the slight increase in the maximum total sample size from 125 to 130.     

Incorporating Individual and Collective Ethics into Phase I Cancer Trial Designs

Summary A general framework is proposed for Bayesian model based designs of Phase I cancer trials, in which a general criterion for coherence (Cheung, 2005, Biometrika 92 , 863–873) of a design is also developed. This framework can incorporate both “individual” and “collective” ethics into the design of the trial. We propose a new design that minimizes a risk function composed of two terms, with one representing the individual risk of the current dose and the other representing the collective risk. The performance of this design, which is measured in terms of the accuracy of the estimated target dose at the end of the trial, the toxicity and overdose rates, and certain loss functions reflecting the individual and collective ethics, is studied and compared with existing Bayesian model based designs and is shown to have better performance than existing designs.