Phase I Trials including Phase I Cancer Trials

Author(s):  
Sylvie Chevret
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (33) ◽  
pp. 4260-4267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif Manji ◽  
Irene Brana ◽  
Eitan Amir ◽  
George Tomlinson ◽  
Ian F. Tannock ◽  
...  

Purpose To evaluate the use and objectives of expansion cohorts in phase I cancer trials and to explore trial characteristics associated with their use. Methods We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, limiting studies to single-agent phase I trials recruiting adults and published after 2006. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Data were assessed descriptively, and associations were tested by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Results We identified 611 unique phase I cancer trials, of which 149 (24%) included an expansion cohort. The trials were significantly more likely to use an expansion cohort if they were published more recently, were multicenter, or evaluated a noncytotoxic agent. Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 74% of trials. In these trials, safety (80%), efficacy (45%), pharmacokinetics (28%), pharmacodynamics (23%), and patient enrichment (14%) were cited as objectives. Among expansion cohorts with safety objectives, the recommended phase II dose was modified in 13% and new toxicities were described in 54% of trials. Among trials aimed at assessing efficacy, only 11% demonstrated antitumor activity assessed by response criteria that was not previously observed during dose escalation. Conclusion The utilization of expansion cohorts has increased with time. Safety and efficacy are common objectives, but 26% fail to report explicit aims. Expansion cohorts may provide useful supplementary data for phase I trials, particularly with regard to toxicity and definition of recommended dose for phase II studies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHIARA CARLOMAGNO ◽  
GENNARO DANIELE ◽  
ROBERTO BIANCO ◽  
ROBERTA MARCIANO ◽  
VINCENZO DAMIANO ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. S283
Author(s):  
C. Twelves ◽  
J.L. Misset ◽  
M. Villalona-Calero ◽  
D. Ryan ◽  
J. Clark ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 728-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Pazdur ◽  
Yvonne Lassere ◽  
Enrique Diaz-Canton ◽  
Beth Bready ◽  
Dah H Ho

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e51039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Le Tourneau ◽  
Hui K. Gan ◽  
Albiruni R. A. Razak ◽  
Xavier Paoletti

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. E153-E160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Weiss ◽  
Laurel Northouse ◽  
Sonia Duffy ◽  
Berit Ingersoll-Dayton ◽  
Maria Katapodi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Pavel Mozgunov ◽  
Rochelle Knight ◽  
Helen Barnett ◽  
Thomas Jaki

There is growing interest in Phase I dose-finding studies studying several doses of more than one agent simultaneously. A number of combination dose-finding designs were recently proposed to guide escalation/de-escalation decisions during the trials. The majority of these proposals are model-based: a parametric combination-toxicity relationship is fitted as data accumulates. Various parameter shapes were considered but the unifying theme for many of these is that typically between 4 and 6 parameters are to be estimated. While more parameters allow for more flexible modelling of the combination-toxicity relationship, this is a challenging estimation problem given the typically small sample size in Phase I trials of between 20 and 60 patients. These concerns gave raise to an ongoing debate whether including more parameters into combination-toxicity model leads to more accurate combination selection. In this work, we extensively study two variants of a 4-parameter logistic model with reduced number of parameters to investigate the effect of modelling assumptions. A framework to calibrate the prior distributions for a given parametric model is proposed to allow for fair comparisons. Via a comprehensive simulation study, we have found that the inclusion of the interaction parameter between two compounds does not provide any benefit in terms of the accuracy of selection, on average, but is found to result in fewer patients allocated to the target combination during the trial.


Author(s):  
Dixie-Lee W. Esseltine ◽  
David P. Schenkein
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Macaluso ◽  
Michael Krams ◽  
Sheldon H. Preskorn
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document