Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The 3 + 3 design is the most common choice by clinicians for phase I dose-escalation oncology trials. In recent reviews, more than 90 % of phase I trials are based on the 3 + 3 design (Rogatko et al., Journal of Clinical Oncology 25:4982–4986, 2007). The simplicity and transparency of 3 + 3 allows clinicians to conduct dose escalations in practice with virtually no logistic cost, and trial protocols based on 3 + 3 pass IRB and biostatistics reviews briskly. However, the performance of 3 + 3 has never been compared to model-based designs under simulation studies with matched sample sizes. In the vast majority of statistical literature, 3 + 3 has been shown to be inferior in identifying the true MTD although the sample size required by 3 + 3 is often magnitude smaller than model-based designs. In this paper, through comparative simulation studies with matched sample sizes, we demonstrate that the 3 + 3 design has higher risks of exposing patients to toxic doses above the MTD than the mTPI design (Ji et al., Clinical Trials 7:653–663, 2010), a newly developed adaptive method. In addition, compared to mTPI, 3 + 3 does not provide higher probabilities in identifying the correct MTD even when the sample size is matched. Given the fact that the mTPI design is equally transparent, simple and costless to implement with free software, and more flexible in practical situations, we highly encourage more adoptions of the mTPI design in early dose-escalation studies whenever the 3 + 3 design is also considered. We provide a free software to allow direct comparisons of the 3 + 3 design to other model-based designs in simulation studies with matched sample sizes.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
A Rogatko, D Schoeneck, W. Jonas, M. Tighiouart, FR. Khuri, and A. Porter. Translation of Innovative Designs Into Phase I Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25:4982–4986, 2007.
Y Ji, P Liu, Y Li, and BN Bekele. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clinical Trials, 7:653–663, 2010. CrossRef
B.E. Storer. An evaluation of phase I clinical trials designs in the continuous dose-response setting. Statistics in Medicine, 48:2399–2408, 2001. CrossRef
C. Le Tourneau, JJ. Lee, and LL. Siu. Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 101:708–720, 2009.
Y. Ji, Y. Li, and B.N. Bekele. Dose-finding in phase I clinical trials based on toxicity probability intervals. Clinical Trials, 4:235–244, 2007. CrossRef
SM Berry, BP Carlin, JJ Lee, and P Müller. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for CLinical Trials. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2011. MATH
YK Cheung. Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2011. CrossRef
M.S. Blanchard and J.A. Longmate. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): A practical Phase I design. Comtemporary Clinical Trials, 32:114–121, 2011. CrossRef
M. Fanale, L. Fayad, B. Pro, F. Samaniego, M. Liboon, C. Nunez, S. Horowitz, P. Anderlini, U. Popat, Y. Ji, LW. Kwak, and A. Younes. Phase I study of bortezomib plus ICE (BICE) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology, 154:284–286, 2011.
TA Yap, L Yan, A Patnaik, I Fearen, D Olmos, K Papadopoulos, RD Baird, L Delgado, A Taylor, L Lupinacci, R Riisnaes, LL Pope, SP Heaton, G Thomas, MD Garrett, DM Sullivan, JS de Bono, and AW Tolcher. First-in-Man Clinical Trial of the Oral Pan-AKT Inhibitor MK-2206 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, pages 4688–4695, 2011.
NK Ibrahim, N Desai, and S et al Legha. Phaes I and pharmacokinetic study of ABI-007, a Cremophor-free, protein-stablized, nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel. Clinical Cancer Research, 7(5):1038–1044, 2002.
D Strumberg, H Richly, and RA et al Hilger. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the novel Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced refractor solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(5):965–972, 2005.
F Xie, Y Ji, and L Tremmel. A Bayesian adaptive design for multi-dose,randomized,placebo-controlled phase I/II trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 33:739–748, 2012.
J O’Quigley. Another Look at Two Phase I Clinical Trial Designs. Statistics in Medicine, 18:2683–2690, 1999. CrossRef
E.L. Korn, D. Midthune, T.T. Chen, L.V. Rubinstein, M.C. Christian, and R. Simon. A comparison of two phase I designs. Statistics in Medicine, 13:1799–1806, 1994. CrossRef
S.N. Goodman, M.L. Zahurak, and S. Piantadosi. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statistics in Medicine, 14:1149–1161, 1995. CrossRef
- Safety Concerns of the 3+3 Design: A Comparison to the mTPI Design
- Springer New York