A Bayesian phase I‐II dose‐finding design is presented for a clinical trial with four coprimary outcomes that reflect the actual clinical observation process. During a prespecified fixed follow‐up period, the times to disease progression, toxicity, and death are monitored continuously, and an ordinal disease status variable, including progressive disease (PD) as one level, is evaluated repeatedly by scheduled imaging. We assume a proportional hazards model with piecewise constant baseline hazard for each continuous variable and a longitudinal multinomial probit model for the ordinal disease status process and include multivariate patient frailties to induce association among the outcomes. A finite partition of the nonfatal outcome combinations during the follow‐up period is constructed, and the utility of each set in the partition is elicited. Posterior mean utility is used to optimize each patient's dose, subject to a safety rule excluding doses with an unacceptably high rate of PD, severe toxicity, or death. A simulation study shows that, compared with the proposed design, a simpler design based on commonly used efficacy and toxicity outcomes obtained by combining the four variables described above performs poorly and has substantially smaller probabilities of correctly choosing truly optimal doses and excluding truly unsafe doses.
- Award ID(s):
- 2047631
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10320024
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Pharmaceutical Statistics
- ISSN:
- 1539-1604
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
A Bayesian phase I‐II design is presented that optimizes the dose of a new agent within predefined prognostic subgroups. The design is motivated by a trial to evaluate targeted agents for treating metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma, where a prognostic risk score defined by clinical variables and biomarkers is well established. Two clinical outcomes are used for dose‐finding, time‐to‐toxicity during a prespecified follow‐up period, and efficacy characterized by ordinal disease status evaluated at the end of follow‐up. A joint probability model is constructed for these outcomes as functions of dose and subgroup. The model performs adaptive clustering of adjacent subgroups having similar dose‐outcome distributions to facilitate borrowing information across subgroups. To quantify toxicity‐efficacy risk‐benefit trade‐offs that may differ between subgroups, the objective function is based on outcome utilities elicited separately for each subgroup. In the context of the renal cancer trial, a design is constructed and a simulation study is presented to evaluate the design's reliability, safety, and robustness, and to compare it to designs that either ignore subgroups or run a separate trial within each subgroup.
-
Phase I clinical trials are the first step in drug development to test a new drug or drug combination on humans. Typical designs of Phase I trials use toxicity as the primary endpoint and aim to find the maximum tolerable dosage. However, these designs are poorly applicable for the development of cancer therapeutic vaccines because the expected safety concerns for these vaccines are not as much as cytotoxic agents. The primary objectives of a cancer therapeutic vaccine phase I trial thus often include determining whether the vaccine shows biologic activity and the minimum dose necessary to achieve a full immune or even clinical response. In this paper, we propose a new Bayesian phase I trial design that allows simultaneous evaluation of safety and immunogenicity outcomes. We demonstrate the proposed clinical trial design by both a numeric study and a therapeutic human papillomavirus vaccine trial.
-
Abstract Despite therapeutic advancements, oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) remains a difficult disease to treat. Systemic platinum-based chemotherapy often leads to dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), affecting quality of life. PRV111 is a nanotechnology-based system for local delivery of cisplatin loaded chitosan particles, that penetrate tumor tissue and lymphatic channels while avoiding systemic circulation and toxicity. Here we evaluate PRV111 using animal models of oral cancer, followed by a clinical trial in patients with OCSCC. In vivo, PRV111 results in elevated cisplatin retention in tumors and negligible systemic levels, compared to the intravenous, intraperitoneal or intratumoral delivery. Furthermore, PRV111 produces robust anti-tumor responses in subcutaneous and orthotopic cancer models and results in complete regression of carcinogen-induced premalignant lesions. In a phase 1/2, open-label, single-arm trial (NCT03502148), primary endpoints of efficacy (≥30% tumor volume reduction) and safety (incidence of DLTs) of neoadjuvant PRV111 were reached, with 69% tumor reduction in ~7 days and over 87% response rate. Secondary endpoints (cisplatin biodistribution, loco-regional control, and technical success) were achieved. No DLTs or drug-related serious adverse events were reported. No locoregional recurrences were evident in 6 months. Integration of PRV111 with current standard of care may improve health outcomes and survival of patients with OCSCC.
-
Abstract Background Entinostat is an oral small molecule inhibitor of class I histone deacetylases (HDAC), which has not previously been evaluated in pediatrics. We conducted a phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose (MTD/RP2D), toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of entinostat in children with relapsed or refractory solid tumors including central nervous system (CNS) malignancies.
Methods A rolling six dose escalation design evaluated two dose levels. Entinostat oral tablet formulation was administered once per week, four doses per 28‐day cycle. PK and PD studies were performed.
Results Twenty‐one eligible patients’ median (range) age was 14 years (6‐20). Six subjects were treated at 3 mg/m2dose level and 15 were treated in 4 mg/m2dose level. The study included patients with CNS tumors (n = 12), sarcomas (n = 6), or other solid tumors (n = 3). Eight patients were not fully evaluable for toxicity due to progression of disease prior to receiving the required percentage of protocol therapy. No cycle one dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed at either dose level. A three‐fold higher area under the curve (AUC) was achieved in our cohort compared to adults using a similar dosing schedule. The PD studies showed increase in acetylated lysine in peripheral blood leukocytes at both doses.
Conclusions Entinostat was well tolerated with no DLT observed. All patients experienced progression within the first two cycles, except one patient with ependymoma with stable disease. Based on PK and PD, the R2PD in pediatric patients with solid tumors is 4 mg/m2orally administered once weekly.