Search

We describe a dose escalation procedure for a combined phase I/II clinical trial. The procedure is based on a Bayesian model for the joint distribution of the occurrence of a dose limiting event and of some indicator of efficacy (both considered binary variables), making no assumptions other than monotonicity. Thus, the chances of each outcome are assumed to be non-decreasing in dose level. We applied the procedure to the design of a placebo-controlled, sequential trial in rheumatoid arthritis, in each stage of which patients were randomized between placebo and all dose levels that currently appeared safe and non-futile. On the basis of data from a pilot study, we constructed five different scenarios for the dose-response relationships under which we simulated the trial and assessed the performance of the procedure. The new design appears to have satisfactory operating characteristics and can be adapted to the requirements of a range of trial situations., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Many formal statistical procedures for phase I dose-finding studies have been proposed. Most concern a single novel agent available at a number of doses and administered to subjects participating in a single treatment period and returning a single binary indicator of toxicity. Such a structure is common when evaluating cytotoxic drugs for cancer. This paper concerns studies of combinations of two agents, both available at several doses. Subjects participate in one treatment period and provide two binary responses: one an indicator of benefit and the other of harm. The word 'benefit' is used loosely here: the response might be an early indicator of physiological change which, if induced in patients, is of potential therapeutic value. The context need not be oncology, but might be any study intended to meet both the phase I aim of establishing which doses are safe and the phase II goal of exploring potential therapeutic activity. A Bayesian approach is used based on an assumption of monotonicity in the relationship between the strength of the dose-combination and the distribution of the bivariate outcome. Special cases are described, and the procedure is evaluated using simulation. The parameters that define the model have immediate and simple interpretation. Graphical representations of the posterior opinions about model parameters are shown, and these can be used to inform the discussions of the trial safety committee., (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Despite an enormous and growing statistical literature, formal procedures for dose-finding are only slowly being implemented in phase I clinical trials. Even in oncology and other life-threatening conditions in which a balance between efficacy and toxicity has to be struck, model-based approaches, such as the Continual Reassessment Method, have not been universally adopted. Two related concerns have limited the adoption of the new methods. One relates to doubts about the appropriateness of models assumed to link the risk of toxicity to dose, and the other is the difficulty of communicating the nature of the process to clinical investigators responsible for early phase studies. In this paper, we adopt a new Bayesian approach involving a simple model assuming only monotonicity in the dose-toxicity relationship. The parameters that define the model have immediate and simple interpretation. The approach can be applied automatically, and we present a simulation investigation of its properties when it is. More importantly, it can be used in a transparent fashion as one element in the expert consideration of what dose to administer to the next patient or group of patients. The procedure serves to summarize the opinions and the data concerning risks of a binary characterization of toxicity which can then be considered, together with additional and less tidy trial information, by the clinicians responsible for making decisions on the allocation of doses. Graphical displays of these opinions can be used to ease communication with investigators., (Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)