scholarly journals Is the “3+3” Dose-Escalation Phase I Clinical Trial Design Suitable for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine Development? A Recommendation for Alternative Design

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (18) ◽  
pp. 4758-4767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osama E. Rahma ◽  
Emily Gammoh ◽  
Richard M. Simon ◽  
Samir N. Khleif
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2578-2578
Author(s):  
Emily Gammoh ◽  
Osama E. Rahma ◽  
Richard Simon ◽  
Samir Khleif

2578 Background: Traditional phase I, “3+3 dose escalation” design, is conducted to identify the MTD and in some cases the optimal biologic dose. Given their unique mechanism of action and the profile of their clinical outcome, this design may not apply to cancer vaccines. The therapeutic cancer vaccine FDA guidance calls for an alternative early development design. Nevertheless, whether an alternative design should be based on “dose escalation” is still an opened question. Methods: We analyzed the toxicity profile in 241 phase 1, 1/2 and pilot therapeutic cancer vaccine trials conducted between 1990 and 2011. Results: Sixty-two grade 3/4 vaccine related systemic toxicities were reported in 4952 treated patients (1.25 events/100 patients). Interestingly, only 2 out of 127 trials that used dose escalation reported vaccine related DLTs, both trials used bacterial vectors. Furthermore, correlation of immunological response with dose level showed no consistent trend. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that in cancer vaccines neither toxicity nor cellular immune response correlates with dose levels. Accordingly, dose escalation is not suitable for most cancer vaccine studies. Here, we propose a two-step alternative design for early development of cancer vaccines. The first step is to determine and confirm the minimum Immune-Active Dose (IAD). If a vaccine class has been used in humans, IAD dose is chosen based on previous experience if the class is non-toxic (eg. Peptide), otherwise, a traditional dose escalation will be used. For a vaccine class that has not been tested or has undetermined toxicity we recommend “One Patient Escalation Design” (OPSD): one patient is treated per tested dose until an immune response is induced. To confirm this activity, an expanded cohort of 7 patients will be tested until demonstrating an additional response. This will then be used in phase II combination therapy trial. Alternatively, IAD can be directly tested in combination with an immune modulator in a phase II clinical trial using a two-stage design. The first stage of the phase 2 trial can be set at 4-5 patients for a target response rate of over 50%. If no response is seen, then the immune modulator will be escalated in the second stage.


Author(s):  
Razelle Kurzrock ◽  
Chia-Chi Lin ◽  
Tsung-Che Wu ◽  
Brian P. Hobbs ◽  
Roberto Carmagnani Pestana ◽  
...  

Misgivings have been raised about the operating characteristics of the canonical 3+3 dose-escalation phase I clinical trial design. Yet, the traditional 3+3 design is still the most commonly used. Although it has been implied that adhering to this design is due to a stubborn reluctance to adopt change despite other designs performing better in hypothetical computer-generated simulation models, the continued adherence to 3+3 dose-escalation phase I strategies is more likely because these designs perform the best in the real world, pinpointing the correct dose and important side effects with an acceptable degree of precision. Beyond statistical simulations, there are little data to refute the supposed shortcomings ascribed to the 3+3 method. Even so, to address the unique nuances of gene- and immune-targeted compounds, a variety of inventive phase 1 trial designs have been suggested. Strategies for developing these therapies have launched first-in-human studies devised to acquire a breadth of patient data that far exceed the size of a typical phase I design and blur the distinction between dose selection and efficacy evaluation. Recent phase I trials of promising cancer therapies assessed objective tumor response and durability at various doses and schedules as well as incorporated multiple expansion cohorts spanning a variety of histology or biomarker-defined tumor subtypes, sometimes resulting in U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval after phase I. This article reviews recent innovations in phase I design from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and provides recommendations for future trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document