Summary
The number of patients treated at each dose-level in dose seeking phase I trials is arbitrarily established. The most frequently used design is the “classical 3 + 3 design (3 + 3D)”. Recently, Simon et al. had introduced several “accelerated titration designs (ATD)”. In the present analysis, we compared the performance of these two types of designs in 270 recently (1997–2008) published phase I trials. ATD had been used in only 10% of the recent studies. ATD had permitted to explore significantly more dose levels (seven versus five, p = 0.0001) and reduced the rate of patients treated at doses below phase-2 recommended dose (46% versus 56%, p = 0.0001). Nevertheless, ATD did not allow a reduction in the number of enrolled patients, shorten the accrual time nor increase the efficacy of phase I trials. These data support that ATD as an effective clinical trial design over a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Seymour LK, Eisenhauer EA, Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (2008) Eur J Cancer 44:19–24. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.034
Morabito A, Di Maio E, Normanno N, Perrone F (2006) Methodology of clinical trials with new molecular-targeted agents: where do we stand? Ann Oncol 17(S7):vii128–vii131. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl965
Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky R et al (1993) Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1637–1643. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.20.1637
Simon R, Friedlin B, Rubinstein LV, Arbuck SG, Collins J, Christian MC (1997) Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1138–1147. doi:10.1093/jnci/89.15.1138
Verweij J (2008) "No risk, no fun": challenges for the oncology phase I clinical trial time-performance. Eur J Cancer 44:2600–2607. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.043
Penel N, Vanseymortier M, Bonneterre ME, Clisant S, Dansin E, Vendel Y, Beuscart R, Bonneterre J (2008) Prognostic factors among cancer patients with good performance status screened for phase I trials. Invest New Drugs 26:53–58. doi:10.1007/s10637-007-9088-x
Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE (1990) Response and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1:175–181
Von Hoff DD, Turner J (1991) Response rates, duration of response and dose response effects in phase I studies. Invest New Drugs 9:115–121
Bachelot T, Ray-Coquard I, Catimel G et al (2000) Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for toxicity and survival for patients enrolled in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 11:151–156. doi:10.1023/A:1008368319526
Daugherty CK, Ratain HJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E et al (1995) Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 13:1062
Agrawal M, Emmanuel EJ (2003) Ethics of phase I oncology studies: re-examining the arguments and the data. JAMA 290:1075–1082. doi:10.1001/jama.290.8.1075
Roberts TG, Goulart BH, Stallings SC et al (2004) Trends in the risk and benefits to patients with participating in phase I clinical trials. JAMA 292:2130–2140. doi:10.1001/jama.292.17.2130
Estey E, Hoth D, Simon R, Marsoni S, Leyland-Jones B, Wittes R (1996) Therapeutic responses in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 70:1105–1115
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Penel, N., Isambert, N., Leblond, P. et al. “Classical 3 + 3 design” versus “accelerated titration designs”: analysis of 270 phase 1 trials investigating anti-cancer agents. Invest New Drugs 27, 552–556 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-008-9213-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-008-9213-5