1. Home
  2. Issues
  3. Volume 2, Issue 1 (2024)
  4. The Total i3+3 (Ti3+3) Design for Assess ...

The New England Journal of Statistics in Data Science


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: Methodology Article      Open accessOpen Access
Area: Cancer Research
Published
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

[1] 
National Cancer Institute. (2018). Common terminology criteria for adverse events (ctcae). Version 3.0.
[2] 
Storer, B. E. (1989). Design and analysis of phase i clinical trials. Biometrics 925–937. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531693. MR1029610
[3] 
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
[4] 
Ji, Y., Liu, P., Li, Y. and Bekele, B. N. (2010). A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clinical Trials 7(6) 653–663.
[5] 
Ji, Y. and Wang, S. -J. (2013). Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3+ 3 design for practical phase i trials. journal of Clinical Oncology 31(14) 1785.
[6] 
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
[7] 
Yan, F., Mandrekar, S. J. and Yuan, Y. (2017). Keyboard: a novel bayesian toxicity probability interval design for phase i clinical trials. Clinical Cancer Research 23(15) 3994–4003.
[8] 
Liu, M., Wang, S.-J. and Ji, Y. (2020). The i3+3 design for phase i clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 30(2) 294–304.
[9] 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2022). Project optimus. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/oncology-center-excellence/project-optimus
[10] 
Penel, N., Adenis, A., Clisant, S. and Bonneterre, J. (2011). Nature and subjectivity of dose-limiting toxicities in contemporary phase 1 trials: comparison of cytotoxic versus non-cytotoxic drugs. Investigational new drugs 29(6) 1414–1419.
[11] 
Le Tourneau, C., Diéras, V., Tresca, P., Cacheux, W. and Paoletti, X. (2010). Current challenges for the early clinical development of anticancer drugs in the era of molecularly targeted agents. Targeted oncology 5(1) 65–72.
[12] 
Shah, M., Rahman, A., Theoret, M. R. and Pazdur, R. (2021). The drug-dosing conundrum in oncology-when less is more. The New England journal of medicine 385(16) 1445–1447.
[13] 
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
[14] 
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
[15] 
Lee, S. M., Hershman, D., Martin, P., Leonard, J. and Cheung, K. (2009). Validation of toxicity burden score for use in phase i clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27(15_suppl) 2514.
[16] 
Lee, S. M., Cheng, B. and Cheung, Y. K. (2011). Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints. Biostatistics 12(2) 386–398.
[17] 
Van Meter, E. M., Garrett-Mayer, E. and Bandyopadhyay, D. (2012). Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clinical trials 9(3) 303–313.
[18] 
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
[19] 
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
[20] 
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
[21] 
Milton, D. R., Lin, S. H. and Hobbs, B. P. (2020). Comparing radiation modalities with trimodality therapy using total toxicity burden. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 107(5) 1001–1005.
[22] 
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.
[23] 
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
[24] 
Robertson, T. (1988). Order restricted statistical inference. Technical report.
[25] 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2022). Adverse event reporting system.
[26] 
Guo, W., Wang, S. -J., Yang, S., Lynn, H. and Ji, Y. (2017). A bayesian interval dose-finding design addressing ockham’s razor: mtpi-2. Contemporary clinical trials 58. 23–33.
[27] 
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
[28] 
Mair, P., Hornik, K. and de Leeuw, J. (2009). Isotone optimization in r: pool-adjacent-violators algorithm (pava) and active set methods. Journal of statistical software 32(5) 1–24.
[29] 
Lee, S. M. and Cheung, Y. K. (2009). Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clinical Trials 3(6) 227–238.

Full article PDF XML
Full article PDF XML

Copyright
© 2024 New England Statistical Society
Open access article under the CC BY license.

Keywords
Interval design Multiple toxicity grades Rule-based design Toxicity burden

Metrics
since December 2021
689

Article info
views

322

Full article
views

349

PDF
downloads

121

XML
downloads


Share


RSS