Application of the continual reassessment method to a phase I dose-finding trial in Japanese patients: East meets West

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (17) ◽  
pp. 2090-2097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoshi Morita
2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110015
Author(s):  
Matthew J Schipper ◽  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jeremy MG Taylor ◽  
Randall K Ten Haken ◽  
Christina Tsien ◽  
...  

Introduction: In some phase I trial settings, there is uncertainty in assessing whether a given patient meets the criteria for dose-limiting toxicity. Methods: We present a design which accommodates dose-limiting toxicity outcomes that are assessed with uncertainty for some patients. Our approach could be utilized in many available phase I trial designs, but we focus on the continual reassessment method due to its popularity. We assume that for some patients, instead of the usual binary dose-limiting toxicity outcome, we observe a physician-assessed probability of dose-limiting toxicity specific to a given patient. Data augmentation is used to estimate the posterior probabilities of dose-limiting toxicity at each dose level based on both the fully observed and partially observed patient outcomes. A simulation study is used to assess the performance of the design relative to using the continual reassessment method on the true dose-limiting toxicity outcomes (available in simulation setting only) and relative to simple thresholding approaches. Results: Among the designs utilizing the partially observed outcomes, our proposed design has the best overall performance in terms of probability of selecting correct maximum tolerated dose and number of patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose. Conclusion: Incorporating uncertainty in dose-limiting toxicity assessment can improve the performance of the continual reassessment method design.


Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2273-2273
Author(s):  
Seitaro Terakura ◽  
Masashi Sawa ◽  
Haruhiko Ohashi ◽  
Tomonori Kato ◽  
Satoshi Nishiwaki ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2273 Poster Board II-250 Background Development of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen has enabled older patients, who are not expected to tolerate the toxicity of myeloablative conditioning, to be treated with allogeneic HSCT. Because the risk of rejection after BMT is substantially higher than that of PBSCT in RIC transplantation, PBSC is commonly used for RIC transplantation. However, PBSCT from unrelated donors is not currently available in Japan. Therefore, a better dosage of conditioning to ensure engraftment in RIC with BM is needed. Here, we selected the fludarabine plus melphalan regimen which has sufficient potential to induce marrow engraftment if melphalan at 180mg/m2 is used, and planned further optimization of melphalan dosage. The rationale for modulating the dose of melphalan resulted from accumulated observations that melphalan is associated with toxicities, while fludarabine is not. Because the optimal dose of melphalan to minimize regimen-related toxicities and to enable sustained engraftment remains unknown to date, we investigated the recommended dose of melphalan in a phase I study. Patients and Methods To adjust the melphalan dose, we adopted a modified continual reassessment method (CRM) which has been hypothesized to allow a faster and more accurate dose reduction/escalation in patients needed to reach the recommended dose compared with classical algorithmic dose modification design. The conditioning regimen consisted of 125 mg/m2 intravenous fludarabine (day-6∼-2) in combination with the examination dose of intravenous melphalan (day-3, -2). Because the use of fludarabine at 125mg/m2 and melphalan at 180mg/m2 was known to induce reliable engraftment, we set the first dose level to receive 160mg/m2 of melphalan. The primary endpoint was an achievement of donor-type T-cell chimerism at day 28 with successful engraftment defined as 90% or more donor cells. Five patients were planned to be accrued for each dose level and chimerism data was used to determine the next dose. A maximum dose reduction of melphalan for the next level was limited to 30mg/m2 to avoid the potential risk of graft-failure. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of short term methotrexate and tacrolimus. The eligibility criteria were 1) patients with hematological malignancies, who have had more than 3 course of chemotherapy, 2) age, 55 to 65 years, or 40 to 54 years with substantial comorbidity (HCT-CI of 1 or more), 3) no prior stem cell transplantation. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each institution. All patients and donors provided written informed consent. Results Seventeen patients were enrolled at doses between 130mg/m2 and 160mg/m2, including one protocol violation and one early death (brain hemorrhage). Both were unavailable for assessment according to the study definition in advance. Of the 15 evaluable patients (9 male, 6 female), the median age was 58 years old (range: 45-63), and their diagnosis were 10 AML, 2 NHL, 1 CML 1 ALL and 1 plasmacytoma. The dose was reduced from 160mg/m2 (level-1) to 130mg/m2 (level-2) after 5 consecutive full donor chimerism (all were 100% at day 28) were observed in level-1. In the level-2, we observed four patients with 100% chimera, and one with 0% chimera at day 28, which eventually resulted in graft-failure. Following the calculation by CRM from level-2, the examination dose was increased to 135mg/m2 (level-3). In the level-3, 5 consecutive full donor chimerism (four 100% and one 90.4%) were observed again. Because the next examination dose was calculated as within 5mg/m2 from the level-3 (135mg/m2), the study was complete as projected. We could not detect any significant difference among the dose levels in terms of toxicity, relapse rate or survival. Discussion Successful dose finding using modified CRM was accomplished. The strategy using engraftment as a primary endpoint instead of toxicity promotes a better chance to determine the optimal dosage compared with the classical phase I trial design with modified Fibonacci method. Our findings demonstrated the melphalan dose of 135mg/m2 in combination with fludarabine is able to induce initial full donor chimerism after unrelated donor BMT and is recommended for further phase II evaluation. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 1362-1368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Paoletti ◽  
Benoît Baron ◽  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Pierre Fumoleau ◽  
Denis Lacombe ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-82
Author(s):  
M. Iftakhar Alam

AbstractThe continual reassessment method is a model-based procedure, described in the literature, used to determine the maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials. The maximum tolerated dose can also be found under the framework of D-optimum design, where information is gathered in such a way so that asymptotic variability in the parameter estimates in minimised. This paper investigates the two methods under some realistic settings to explore any potential differences between them. Simulation studies for six plausible dose-response scenarios show that D-optimum design can work well in comparison with the continual reassessment method in many cases. The D-optimum design is also found to allocate doses from the extremes of the design region to the patients in a trial.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 522-534
Author(s):  
Rachid Abbas ◽  
Caroline Rossoni ◽  
Thomas Jaki ◽  
Xavier Paoletti ◽  
Pavel Mozgunov

Background/Aims In oncology, new combined treatments make it difficult to order dose levels according to monotonically increasing toxicity. New flexible dose-finding designs that take into account uncertainty in dose levels ordering were compared with classical designs through simulations in the setting of the monotonicity assumption violation. We give recommendations for the choice of dose-finding design. Methods Motivated by a clinical trial for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, we considered designs that require a monotonicity assumption, the Bayesian Continual Reassessment Method, the modified Toxicity Probability Interval, the Bayesian Optimal Interval design, and designs that relax monotonicity assumption, the Bayesian Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method and the No Monotonicity Assumption design. We considered 15 scenarios including monotonic and non-monotonic dose–toxicity relationships among six dose levels. Results The No Monotonicity Assumption and Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method designs were robust to the violation of the monotonicity assumption. Under non-monotonic scenarios, the No Monotonicity Assumption design selected the correct dose level more often than alternative methods on average. Under the majority of monotonic scenarios, the Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method selected the correct dose level more often than the No Monotonicity Assumption design. Other designs were impacted by the violation of the monotonicity assumption with a proportion of correct selections below 20% in most scenarios. Under monotonic scenarios, the highest proportions of correct selections were achieved using the Continual Reassessment Method and the Bayesian Optimal Interval design (between 52.8% and 73.1%). The costs of relaxing the monotonicity assumption by the No Monotonicity Assumption design and Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method were decreases in the proportions of correct selections under monotonic scenarios ranging from 5.3% to 20.7% and from 1.4% to 16.1%, respectively, compared with the best performing design and were higher proportions of patients allocated to toxic dose levels during the trial. Conclusions Innovative oncology treatments may no longer follow monotonic dose levels ordering which makes standard phase I methods fail. In such a setting, appropriate designs, as the No Monotonicity Assumption or Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Method designs, should be used to safely determine recommended for phase II dose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document