Cargando…

Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies

BACKGROUND: The continual reassessment method (CRM) identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more efficiently and identifies the true MTD more frequently compared to standard methods such as the 3 + 3 method. An initial estimate of the dose-toxicity relationship (prior skeleton) is required, and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: James, G. D., Symeonides, S., Marshall, J., Young, J., Clack, G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33402104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07703-6
_version_ 1783632728935104512
author James, G. D.
Symeonides, S.
Marshall, J.
Young, J.
Clack, G.
author_facet James, G. D.
Symeonides, S.
Marshall, J.
Young, J.
Clack, G.
author_sort James, G. D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The continual reassessment method (CRM) identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more efficiently and identifies the true MTD more frequently compared to standard methods such as the 3 + 3 method. An initial estimate of the dose-toxicity relationship (prior skeleton) is required, and there is limited guidance on how to select this. Previously, we compared the CRM with six different skeletons to the 3 + 3 method by conducting post-hoc analysis on a phase 1 oncology study (AZD3514), each CRM model reduced the number of patients allocated to suboptimal and toxic doses. This manuscript extends this work by assessing the ability of the 3 + 3 method and the CRM with different skeletons in determining the true MTD of various “true” dose-toxicity relationships. METHODS: One thousand studies were simulated for each “true” dose toxicity relationship considered, four were based on clinical trial data (AZD3514, AZD1208, AZD1480, AZD4877), and four were theoretical. The 3 + 3 method and 2-stage extended CRM with six skeletons were applied to identify the MTD, where the true MTD was considered as the largest dose where the probability of experiencing a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is ≤33%. RESULTS: For every true dose-toxicity relationship, the CRM selected the MTD that matched the true MTD in a higher proportion of studies compared to the 3 + 3 method. The CRM overestimated the MTD in a higher proportion of simulations compared to the 3 + 3 method. The proportion of studies where the correct MTD was selected varied considerably between skeletons. For some true dose-toxicity relationships, some skeletons identified the true MTD in a higher proportion of scenarios compared to the skeleton that matched the true dose-toxicity relationship. CONCLUSION: Through simulation, the CRM generally outperformed the 3 + 3 method for the clinical and theoretical true dose-toxicity relationships. It was observed that accurate estimates of the true skeleton do not always outperform a generic skeleton, therefore the application of wide confidence intervals may enable a generic skeleton to be used. Further work is needed to determine the optimum skeleton.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7786936
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77869362021-01-07 Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies James, G. D. Symeonides, S. Marshall, J. Young, J. Clack, G. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: The continual reassessment method (CRM) identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more efficiently and identifies the true MTD more frequently compared to standard methods such as the 3 + 3 method. An initial estimate of the dose-toxicity relationship (prior skeleton) is required, and there is limited guidance on how to select this. Previously, we compared the CRM with six different skeletons to the 3 + 3 method by conducting post-hoc analysis on a phase 1 oncology study (AZD3514), each CRM model reduced the number of patients allocated to suboptimal and toxic doses. This manuscript extends this work by assessing the ability of the 3 + 3 method and the CRM with different skeletons in determining the true MTD of various “true” dose-toxicity relationships. METHODS: One thousand studies were simulated for each “true” dose toxicity relationship considered, four were based on clinical trial data (AZD3514, AZD1208, AZD1480, AZD4877), and four were theoretical. The 3 + 3 method and 2-stage extended CRM with six skeletons were applied to identify the MTD, where the true MTD was considered as the largest dose where the probability of experiencing a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is ≤33%. RESULTS: For every true dose-toxicity relationship, the CRM selected the MTD that matched the true MTD in a higher proportion of studies compared to the 3 + 3 method. The CRM overestimated the MTD in a higher proportion of simulations compared to the 3 + 3 method. The proportion of studies where the correct MTD was selected varied considerably between skeletons. For some true dose-toxicity relationships, some skeletons identified the true MTD in a higher proportion of scenarios compared to the skeleton that matched the true dose-toxicity relationship. CONCLUSION: Through simulation, the CRM generally outperformed the 3 + 3 method for the clinical and theoretical true dose-toxicity relationships. It was observed that accurate estimates of the true skeleton do not always outperform a generic skeleton, therefore the application of wide confidence intervals may enable a generic skeleton to be used. Further work is needed to determine the optimum skeleton. BioMed Central 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7786936/ /pubmed/33402104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07703-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
James, G. D.
Symeonides, S.
Marshall, J.
Young, J.
Clack, G.
Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title_full Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title_fullStr Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title_short Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
title_sort assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33402104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07703-6
work_keys_str_mv AT jamesgd assessmentofvariouscontinualreassessmentmethodmodelsfordoseescalationphase1oncologyclinicaltrialsusingrealclinicaldataandsimulationstudies
AT symeonidess assessmentofvariouscontinualreassessmentmethodmodelsfordoseescalationphase1oncologyclinicaltrialsusingrealclinicaldataandsimulationstudies
AT marshallj assessmentofvariouscontinualreassessmentmethodmodelsfordoseescalationphase1oncologyclinicaltrialsusingrealclinicaldataandsimulationstudies
AT youngj assessmentofvariouscontinualreassessmentmethodmodelsfordoseescalationphase1oncologyclinicaltrialsusingrealclinicaldataandsimulationstudies
AT clackg assessmentofvariouscontinualreassessmentmethodmodelsfordoseescalationphase1oncologyclinicaltrialsusingrealclinicaldataandsimulationstudies