The Backfill i3+3 Design for Dose-Finding Trials in Oncology
Pub. online: 23 February 2024
Type: Statistical Methodology
Open Access
Open Access
Accepted
9 January 2024
9 January 2024
Published
23 February 2024
23 February 2024
Abstract
We consider a formal statistical design that allows simultaneous enrollment of a main cohort and a backfill cohort of patients in a dose-finding trial. The goal is to accumulate more information at various doses to facilitate dose optimization. The proposed design, called Bi3+3, combines the simple dose-escalation algorithm in the i3+3 design and a model-based inference under the framework of probability of decisions (POD), both previously published. As a result, Bi3+3 provides a simple algorithm for backfilling patients to lower doses in a dose-finding trial once these doses exhibit safety profile in patients. The POD framework allows dosing decisions to be made when some backfill patients are still being followed with incomplete toxicity outcomes, thereby potentially expediting the clinical trial. At the end of the trial, Bi3+3 uses both toxicity and efficacy outcomes to estimate an optimal biological dose (OBD). The proposed inference is based on a dose-response model that takes into account either a monotone or plateau dose-efficacy relationship, which are frequently encountered in modern oncology drug development. Simulation studies show promising operating characteristics of the Bi3+3 design in comparison to existing designs.
References
Cheung, Y. K. and Chappell, R. (2000). Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56(4) 1177–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.01177.x. MR1815616
Ivanova, A., Flournoy, N. and Chung, Y. (2007). Cumulative cohort design for dose-finding. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137(7) 2316–2327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2006.07.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2006.07.009. MR2325437
Lee, S. and Cheung, Y. (2011). Calibration of prior variance in the Bayesian Continual Reassessment Method. Statistics in Medicine 30 2081–2089. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4139. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4139. MR2829158
Liu, S. and Yuan, Y. (2015). Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 64(3) 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12089. MR3325461
Manasanch, E. E., Shah, J. J., Lee, H. C., Weber, D. M., Thomas, S. K., Amini, B., Olsem, J., Crumpton, B., Morphey, A., Berkova, Z. et al. (2020). Phase I/Ib study of carfilzomib and panobinostat with or without dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Haematologica 105(5) 242.
O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M. and Fisher, L. (1990). Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 33–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531628. MR1059105
Xu, Z. and Lin, X. (2022). Probability-of-decision interval 3+3 (POD-i3+3) design for phase I dose finding trials with late-onset toxicity. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 31(3) 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802211052746. MR4388400
Zhou, T. and Ji, Y. (2020). Statistical frameworks for time-to-event dose-finding designs: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11676.
