Safety Concerns of the 3+3 Design: A Comparison to the mTPI Design

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 55)

Abstract

The 3 + 3 design is the most common choice by clinicians for phase I dose-escalation oncology trials. In recent reviews, more than 90 % of phase I trials are based on the 3 + 3 design (Rogatko et al., Journal of Clinical Oncology 25:4982–4986, 2007). The simplicity and transparency of 3 + 3 allows clinicians to conduct dose escalations in practice with virtually no logistic cost, and trial protocols based on 3 + 3 pass IRB and biostatistics reviews briskly. However, the performance of 3 + 3 has never been compared to model-based designs under simulation studies with matched sample sizes. In the vast majority of statistical literature, 3 + 3 has been shown to be inferior in identifying the true MTD although the sample size required by 3 + 3 is often magnitude smaller than model-based designs. In this paper, through comparative simulation studies with matched sample sizes, we demonstrate that the 3 + 3 design has higher risks of exposing patients to toxic doses above the MTD than the mTPI design (Ji et al., Clinical Trials 7:653–663, 2010), a newly developed adaptive method. In addition, compared to mTPI, 3 + 3 does not provide higher probabilities in identifying the correct MTD even when the sample size is matched. Given the fact that the mTPI design is equally transparent, simple and costless to implement with free software, and more flexible in practical situations, we highly encourage more adoptions of the mTPI design in early dose-escalation studies whenever the 3 + 3 design is also considered. We provide a free software to allow direct comparisons of the 3 + 3 design to other model-based designs in simulation studies with matched sample sizes.

Keywords

Toxicity 

References

  1. [1]
    A Rogatko, D Schoeneck, W. Jonas, M. Tighiouart, FR. Khuri, and A. Porter. Translation of Innovative Designs Into Phase I Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25:4982–4986, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Y Ji, P Liu, Y Li, and BN Bekele. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clinical Trials, 7:653–663, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    B.E. Storer. An evaluation of phase I clinical trials designs in the continuous dose-response setting. Statistics in Medicine, 48:2399–2408, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    B.E. Storer. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics, 45:925–937, 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Le Tourneau, JJ. Lee, and LL. Siu. Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 101:708–720, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Y. Ji, Y. Li, and B.N. Bekele. Dose-finding in phase I clinical trials based on toxicity probability intervals. Clinical Trials, 4:235–244, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. O’Quigley, M. Pepe, and L. Fisher. Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase i clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics, 46:33–48, 1990.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    SM Berry, BP Carlin, JJ Lee, and P Müller. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for CLinical Trials. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    YK Cheung. Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Neuenschwander, M. Branson, and T. Gsponer. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine, 27:2420–2439, 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M.S. Blanchard and J.A. Longmate. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): A practical Phase I design. Comtemporary Clinical Trials, 32:114–121, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G.J. Hather and H. Mackey. Some Notable Properties of the Standard Oncology Phase I Design. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 19:543–555, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Fanale, L. Fayad, B. Pro, F. Samaniego, M. Liboon, C. Nunez, S. Horowitz, P. Anderlini, U. Popat, Y. Ji, LW. Kwak, and A. Younes. Phase I study of bortezomib plus ICE (BICE) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology, 154:284–286, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    TA Yap, L Yan, A Patnaik, I Fearen, D Olmos, K Papadopoulos, RD Baird, L Delgado, A Taylor, L Lupinacci, R Riisnaes, LL Pope, SP Heaton, G Thomas, MD Garrett, DM Sullivan, JS de Bono, and AW Tolcher. First-in-Man Clinical Trial of the Oral Pan-AKT Inhibitor MK-2206 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, pages 4688–4695, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    NK Ibrahim, N Desai, and S et al Legha. Phaes I and pharmacokinetic study of ABI-007, a Cremophor-free, protein-stablized, nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel. Clinical Cancer Research, 7(5):1038–1044, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D Strumberg, H Richly, and RA et al Hilger. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the novel Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced refractor solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(5):965–972, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Y Ji, L Feng, EJ Shpall, P Kebriaei, R Champlin, D Berry, and L Cooper. Bayesian Continual Reassessment Method for Dose-Finding Trials Infusing T Cells with Limited Sample Size. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 22:1206–1219, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    F Xie, Y Ji, and L Tremmel. A Bayesian adaptive design for multi-dose,randomized,placebo-controlled phase I/II trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 33:739–748, 2012.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J O’Quigley. Another Look at Two Phase I Clinical Trial Designs. Statistics in Medicine, 18:2683–2690, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    E.L. Korn, D. Midthune, T.T. Chen, L.V. Rubinstein, M.C. Christian, and R. Simon. A comparison of two phase I designs. Statistics in Medicine, 13:1799–1806, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S.N. Goodman, M.L. Zahurak, and S. Piantadosi. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statistics in Medicine, 14:1149–1161, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Clinical and Research Informatics, NorthShoreUniversity HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Office of Biostatistics/Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations