The Total i3+3 (Ti3+3) Design for Assessing Multiple Types and Grades of Toxicity in Phase I Trials
Volume 2, Issue 1 (2024), pp. 72–85
Pub. online: 4 October 2022
Type: Cancer Research
Open Access
Published
4 October 2022
4 October 2022
Abstract
Phase I trials investigate the toxicity profile of a new treatment and identify the maximum tolerated dose for further evaluation. Most phase I trials use a binary dose-limiting toxicity endpoint to summarize the toxicity profile of a dose. In reality, reported toxicity information is much more abundant, including various types and grades of adverse events. Building upon the i3+3 design (Liu et al., 2020), we propose the Ti3+3 design, in which the letter “T” represents “total” toxicity. The proposed design takes into account multiple toxicity types and grades by computing the toxicity burden at each dose. The Ti3+3 design aims to achieve desirable operating characteristics using a simple statistics framework that utilizes“toxicity burden interval” (TBI). Simulation results show that Ti3+3 demonstrates comparable performance with existing more complex designs.
References
Storer, B. E. (1989). Design and analysis of phase i clinical trials. Biometrics 925–937. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531693. MR1029610
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
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
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2022). Project optimus. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/oncology-center-excellence/project-optimus
Bekele, B. N. and Thall, P. F. (2004). Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99(465) 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000043. MR2061885
Yuan, Z., Chappell, R. and Bailey, H. (2007). The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics 63(1) 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00666.x. MR2345586
Ezzalfani, M., Zohar, S., Qin, R., Mandrekar, S. J. and Le Deley, M. -C. (2013). Dose-finding designs using a novel quasi-continuous endpoint for multiple toxicities. Statistics in medicine 32(16) 2728–2746. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5737. MR3069903
Mu, R., Yuan, Y., Xu, J., Mandrekar, S. J. and Yin, J. (2019). gboin: a unified model-assisted phase i trial design accounting for toxicity grades, and binary or continuous end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 68(2) 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12263. MR3902995
Hobbs, B. P., Thall, P. F. and Lin, S. H. (2016). Bayesian group sequential clinical trial design using total toxicity burden and progression-free survival. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 65(2) 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12117. MR3456689
Lin, S. H., Hobbs, B. P., Verma, V., Tidwell, R. S., Smith, G. L., Lei, X., Corsini, E. M., Mok, I., Wei, X., Yao, L. et al. (2020). Randomized phase iib trial of proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 38(14) 1569.
Morita, S., Thall, P. F. and Müller, P. (2008). Determining the effective sample size of a parametric prior. Biometrics 64(2) 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00888.x. MR2432433
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. MR2325437