1. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials : using real clinical data and simulation studies
- Author
-
J Marshall, Glen Clack, J Young, Stefan Symeonides, and Gareth James
- Subjects
Oncology ,Cancer Research ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions ,Maximum Tolerated Dose ,Bayesian probability ,Phase 1 ,Bayesian ,lcsh:RC254-282 ,01 natural sciences ,Continual reassessment method ,010104 statistics & probability ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Neoplasms ,Internal medicine ,Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols ,Genetics ,medicine ,Dose escalation ,Humans ,Computer Simulation ,0101 mathematics ,Skeleton ,Mathematics ,Dose limiting toxicity ,Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic ,Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ,Models, Theoretical ,Prognosis ,lcsh:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens ,Skeleton (computer programming) ,Confidence interval ,Clinical trial ,Research Design ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Maximum tolerated dose ,Research Article - Abstract
Background The continual reassessment method (CRM) identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more efficiently and identifies the true MTD more frequently compared to standard methods such as the 3 + 3 method. An initial estimate of the dose-toxicity relationship (prior skeleton) is required, and there is limited guidance on how to select this. Previously, we compared the CRM with six different skeletons to the 3 + 3 method by conducting post-hoc analysis on a phase 1 oncology study (AZD3514), each CRM model reduced the number of patients allocated to suboptimal and toxic doses. This manuscript extends this work by assessing the ability of the 3 + 3 method and the CRM with different skeletons in determining the true MTD of various “true” dose-toxicity relationships. Methods One thousand studies were simulated for each “true” dose toxicity relationship considered, four were based on clinical trial data (AZD3514, AZD1208, AZD1480, AZD4877), and four were theoretical. The 3 + 3 method and 2-stage extended CRM with six skeletons were applied to identify the MTD, where the true MTD was considered as the largest dose where the probability of experiencing a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is ≤33%. Results For every true dose-toxicity relationship, the CRM selected the MTD that matched the true MTD in a higher proportion of studies compared to the 3 + 3 method. The CRM overestimated the MTD in a higher proportion of simulations compared to the 3 + 3 method. The proportion of studies where the correct MTD was selected varied considerably between skeletons. For some true dose-toxicity relationships, some skeletons identified the true MTD in a higher proportion of scenarios compared to the skeleton that matched the true dose-toxicity relationship. Conclusion Through simulation, the CRM generally outperformed the 3 + 3 method for the clinical and theoretical true dose-toxicity relationships. It was observed that accurate estimates of the true skeleton do not always outperform a generic skeleton, therefore the application of wide confidence intervals may enable a generic skeleton to be used. Further work is needed to determine the optimum skeleton.
- Published
- 2021