Search

We present a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding in oncology trials with application to a first-in-human trial. The design is based on the escalation with overdose control principle and uses an intermediate grade 2 toxicity in addition to the traditional binary indicator of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to guide the dose escalation and de-escalation. We model the dose–toxicity relationship using the proportional odds model. This assumption satisfies an important ethical concern when a potentially toxic drug is first introduced in the clinic; if a patient experiences grade 2 toxicity at the most, then the amount of dose escalation is lower relative to that wherein if this patient experienced a maximum of grade 1 toxicity. This results in a more careful dose escalation. The performance of the design was assessed by deriving the operating characteristics under several scenarios for the true MTD and expected proportions of grade 2 toxicities. In general, the trial design is safe and achieves acceptable efficiency of the estimated MTD for a planned sample size of twenty patients. At the time of writing this manuscript, twelve patients have been enrolled to the trial.

The standard 3 + 3 or “modified Fibonacci” up-and-down (MF-UD) method of dose escalation is by far the most used design in dose-finding cancer trials. However, MF-UD has always shown inferior performance when compared with its competitors regarding number of patients treated at optimal doses. A consequence of using less effective designs is that more patients are treated with doses outside the therapeutic window. In June 2012, the U S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected the proposal to use Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC), an established dose-finding method which has been extensively used in FDA-approved first in human trials and imposed a variation of the MF-UD, known as accelerated titration (AT) design. This event motivated us to perform an extensive simulation study comparing the operating characteristics of AT and EWOC. We show that the AT design has poor operating characteristics relative to three versions of EWOC under several practical scenarios. From the clinical investigator’s perspective, lower bias and mean square error make EWOC designs preferable than AT designs without compromising safety. From a patient’s perspective, uniformly higher proportion of patients receiving doses within an optimal range of the true MTD makes EWOC designs preferable than AT designs.