Cargando…

Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) wa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fraisse, J., Dinart, D., Tosi, D., Bellera, C., Mollevi, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33441097
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07782-z
_version_ 1783636250615349248
author Fraisse, J.
Dinart, D.
Tosi, D.
Bellera, C.
Mollevi, C.
author_facet Fraisse, J.
Dinart, D.
Tosi, D.
Bellera, C.
Mollevi, C.
author_sort Fraisse, J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected. RESULTS: We retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-07782-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7805102
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78051022021-01-14 Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials Fraisse, J. Dinart, D. Tosi, D. Bellera, C. Mollevi, C. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected. RESULTS: We retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-07782-z. BioMed Central 2021-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7805102/ /pubmed/33441097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07782-z 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
Fraisse, J.
Dinart, D.
Tosi, D.
Bellera, C.
Mollevi, C.
Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title_full Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title_fullStr Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title_short Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials
title_sort optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase i clinical trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33441097
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07782-z
work_keys_str_mv AT fraissej optimalbiologicaldoseasystematicreviewincancerphaseiclinicaltrials
AT dinartd optimalbiologicaldoseasystematicreviewincancerphaseiclinicaltrials
AT tosid optimalbiologicaldoseasystematicreviewincancerphaseiclinicaltrials
AT bellerac optimalbiologicaldoseasystematicreviewincancerphaseiclinicaltrials
AT mollevic optimalbiologicaldoseasystematicreviewincancerphaseiclinicaltrials