Shift Models for Dose-Finding in Ordered Groups with Late-Onset Toxicity
Pub. online: 9 July 2025
Type: Methodology Article
Open Access
Area: Cancer Research
Accepted
21 May 2025
21 May 2025
Published
9 July 2025
9 July 2025
Abstract
Historically, the primary objective of Phase I clinical trials has been to pick an optimal dose in terms of patient safety, referred to as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Most of these trials recommend a “one-size-fits-all” dose for the patient population being studied, while also solely focusing on short-term adverse events. Often patient heterogeneity exists so that group-specific dose selection is of interest. To address the issue of patient heterogeneity, several dose-finding methods have been proposed, including the shift model framework based on the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). Additionally, for many cancer therapies, relevant toxicities may be defined by participants experiencing adverse events at any point over a long evaluation window, resulting in pending outcomes when new participants need to be assigned a dose. By leveraging the CRM, the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) provides a feasible approach for addressing this issue. Motivated by a Phase I trial involving radiotherapy that included two patient groups conducted at the University of Virginia, we have developed a hybrid design that combines elements from the TITE-CRM and the shift model framework. This approach helps address patient heterogeneity and late-onset toxicity simultaneously. We illustrate how to perform a dose-finding trial using the proposed design, and compare its operating characteristics to other suggested methods in the field by conducting a simulation study. The shift model TITE-CRM is shown to be a practical design with good operating characteristics in regard to selecting the correct MTD in each group. An R package is also being developed, allowing investigators to provide group-specific MTD recommendations by applying the proposed design, in addition to providing operating characteristics for custom simulation settings.
Supplementary material
Supplementary MaterialThe supplementary material includes additional simulation results, detailing patient allocation, varying sample sizes, target DLT rates, and accrual rates.
References
Cheung, Y. K. Coherence principles in dose-finding studies. Biometrika 92(4) 863–873 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/92.4.863. MR2234191
Cheung, Y. K. and Chappell, R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56(4) 1177–1182 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.01177.x. MR1815616
Lee, S. M. and Cheung, Y. K. Calibration of prior variance in the Bayesian continual reassessment method. Statistics in medicine 30(17) 2081–2089 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4139. MR2829158
Legedza, A. T. R. and Ibrahim, J. G. Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method. Statistics in Medicine 20(6) 867–882 (2001). https://doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2002.15.2.323. MR1998919
Liu, S., Yin, G. and Yuan, Y. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. The annals of applied statistics 7(4) 1837 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1214/13-AOAS661. MR3161716
Muller, D. A., Wages, N. A., Wilson, D. D., Dutta, S. W., Alonso, C. E., Handsfield, L. L., Chen, Q., Smith, A. B., Romano, K. D., Janowski, E. M. et al. STAT RAD: prospective dose escalation clinical trial of single fraction scan-plan-QA-treat stereotactic body radiation therapy for painful osseous metastases. Practical Radiation Oncology 10(6) e444–e451 (2020).
O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M. and Fisher, L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 33–48 (1990). https://doi.org/10.2307/2531628. MR1059105
O’Quigley, J. Theoretical study of the continual reassessment method. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 136(6) 1765–1780 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2005.08.003. MR2255595
Wages, N. A. and Petroni, G. R. A web tool for designing and conducting phase I trials using the continual reassessment method. BMC cancer 18(1) 1–8 (2018). MR3593209
Wages, N. A., Read, P. W. and Petroni, G. R. A phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial. Pharmaceutical statistics 14(4) 302–310 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2010.514461. MR2758355
Wheeler, G. M., Sweeting, M. J. and Mander, A. P. Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase i cancer trials. Statistics in medicine 36(16) 2499–2513 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7280. MR3660146
Yin, G., Zheng, S. and Xu, J. Fractional dose-finding methods with late-onset toxicity in phase i clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 23(4) 856–870 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2013.789892. MR3196080