Dose-Finding with Two Agents in Phase I Oncology Trials Thall, Millikan, Mueller & Lee, Biometrics, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimating the dose-toxicity curve from completed Phase I studies Alexia Iasonos, Irina Ostrovnaya Department of Biostatistics Memorial Sloan Kettering.
Advertisements

Anthony Greene1 Simple Hypothesis Testing Detecting Statistical Differences In The Simplest Case:  and  are both known I The Logic of Hypothesis Testing:
Bayesian Adaptive Methods
Practical Application of the Continual Reassessment Method to a Phase I Dose-Finding Trial in Japan: East meets West Satoshi Morita Dept. of Biostatistics.
Bayesian posterior predictive probability - what do interim analyses mean for decision making? Oscar Della Pasqua & Gijs Santen Clinical Pharmacology Modelling.
Experimental Design, Response Surface Analysis, and Optimization
RANSAC experimentation Slides by Marc van Kreveld 1.
Getting the help of SAS in Clinical Trial setting: Monitoring and Simulations Presented By: Mehmet Kocak.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy LSU ---- Geaux Tigers! April 2009.
Evaluating Hypotheses Chapter 9. Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics n Descriptive l quantitative descriptions of characteristics.
Hypothesis Testing and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Schering-Plough Workshop May 2007 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before.
Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
1 Equivalence and Bioequivalence: Frequentist and Bayesian views on sample size Mike Campbell ScHARR CHEBS FOCUS fortnight 1/04/03.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy ENAR March 2009.
Exploration and Exploitation Strategies for the K-armed Bandit Problem by Alexander L. Strehl.
Why sample? Diversity in populations Practicality and cost.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy Psychiatric Biostatistics Symposium May 2009.
Continuous Random Variables and Probability Distributions
Estimation 8.
Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials
Cancer Trials. Reading instructions 6.1: Introduction 6.2: General Considerations 6.3: Single stage phase I designs 6.4: Two stage phase I designs 6.5:
Sample Size Determination Ziad Taib March 7, 2014.
(a.k.a. Phase I trials) Dose Finding Studies. Dose Finding  Dose finding trials: broad class of early development trial designs whose purpose is to find.
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 11 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Objectives (BPS chapter 14)
Bayesian Statistics in Clinical Trials Case Studies: Agenda
Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) AISbrain artery Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a major cause of disability and death in adults. AIS is caused by a clot in.
Week 8 Fundamentals of Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests
8.1 Inference for a Single Proportion
“Simple” CRMs for ordinal and multivariate outcomes Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD Emily Van Meter Hollings Cancer Center Medical University of South Carolina.
Inference for a Single Population Proportion (p).
Background to Adaptive Design Nigel Stallard Professor of Medical Statistics Director of Health Sciences Research Institute Warwick Medical School
Computer vision: models, learning and inference Chapter 19 Temporal models.
Chapter 6 Introduction to Statistical Inference. Introduction Goal: Make statements regarding a population (or state of nature) based on a sample of measurements.
Statistical Decision Theory
Specification of a CRM model Ken Cheung Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University (joint work with Shing Columbia)
Section 8.1 Estimating  When  is Known In this section, we develop techniques for estimating the population mean μ using sample data. We assume that.
Experimental Design and Statistical Considerations in Translational Cancer Research (in 15 minutes) Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD Associate Professor of.
Concluding Remarks and Recommendations 1. General recommendations: Consider adaptive dose response designs in exploratory development more often Whenever.
Brian Macpherson Ph.D, Professor of Statistics, University of Manitoba Tom Bingham Statistician, The Boeing Company.
Introduction to Bayesian Methods (I) C. Shane Reese Department of Statistics Brigham Young University.
European Statistical meeting on Oncology Thursday 24 th, June 2010 Introduction - Challenges in development in Oncology H.U. Burger, Hoffmann-La Roche.
Phase I Clinical Trials Given doses d 1 < < d k of a new agent, which may or may not have any anti-disease activity, find a dose with an “acceptable” level.
ELEC 303 – Random Signals Lecture 18 – Classical Statistical Inference, Dr. Farinaz Koushanfar ECE Dept., Rice University Nov 4, 2010.
Cancer Trials. Reading instructions 6.1: Introduction 6.2: General Considerations - read 6.3: Single stage phase I designs - read 6.4: Two stage phase.
Is the Continual Reassessment Method Superior to the Standard “3+3” dose escalation scheme? Alexia Iasonos 1 Elyn R. Riedel 1, David.
1 Designs for Oncology MTD Finding Yevgen Tymofyeyev MERCK & Co., Inc September 12, 2008.
Introduction Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Strategies in Two-Stage Randomizations with Censored Data Zhiguo Li and Susan Murphy Institute for Social.
CHAPTER 17 O PTIMAL D ESIGN FOR E XPERIMENTAL I NPUTS Organization of chapter in ISSO –Background Motivation Finite sample and asymptotic (continuous)
Bayesian Approach For Clinical Trials Mark Chang, Ph.D. Executive Director Biostatistics and Data management AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Simulation Study for Longitudinal Data with Nonignorable Missing Data Rong Liu, PhD Candidate Dr. Ramakrishnan, Advisor Department of Biostatistics Virginia.
Motivating Trial Vidaza ® in AML patients undergoing allotx  Activates genes for apoptosis  Modifies phenotype of leukemic cells to potentiate a GVL.
Motivation for Utility-Based Method Using a “3+3” or similar algorithm based on binary toxicity is like handing over a newborn baby to an idiot. The CRM.
1 Chapter 8 Interval Estimation. 2 Chapter Outline  Population Mean: Known  Population Mean: Unknown  Population Proportion.
Date | Presenter Case Example: Bayesian Adaptive, Dose-Finding, Seamless Phase 2/3 Study of a Long-Acting Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Analog (Dulaglutide)
Statistical Inference for the Mean Objectives: (Chapter 8&9, DeCoursey) -To understand the terms variance and standard error of a sample mean, Null Hypothesis,
| 1 Application of a Bayesian strategy for monitoring multiple outcomes in early oncology clinical trials Application of a Bayesian strategy for monitoring.
A Study on Speaker Adaptation of Continuous Density HMM Parameters By Chin-Hui Lee, Chih-Heng Lin, and Biing-Hwang Juang Presented by: 陳亮宇 1990 ICASSP/IEEE.
Inference for a Single Population Proportion (p)
Bayesian-based decision making in early oncology clinical trials
Sampling Why use sampling? Terms and definitions
Two-Sample Hypothesis Testing
Remember that our objective is for some density f(y|) for observations where y and  are vectors of data and parameters,  being sampled from a prior.
Where did we stop? The Bayes decision rule guarantees an optimal classification… … But it requires the knowledge of P(ci|x) (or p(x|ci) and P(ci)) We.
Statistical Methods for Biotechnology Products II
DOSE SPACING IN EARLY DOSE RESPONSE CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGNS
Penalized designs of multi-response experiments
Extensions of the TEQR and mTPI designs including non-monotone efficacy in addition to toxicity in dose selection Revathi Ananthakrishnan The 3rd Stat4Onc.
Theis Lange and Shanmei Liao
Quantitative Decision Making (QDM) in Phase I/II studies
Presentation transcript:

Dose-Finding with Two Agents in Phase I Oncology Trials Thall, Millikan, Mueller & Lee, Biometrics, 2003

Outline : - The Two-Agent Problem - Probability Model - Prior Elicitation - A Two-Stage Design - Illustration

The Two-Agent Problem - Study two agents used together in a phase I clinical trial, with dose-finding based on Toxicity - Prior information on each agent used alone in previous trials is available - Goal: Find one or more dose pairs of the two agents used together - for future clinical use and/or study in a randomized phase II trial

Difficulties in Two-Agent Phase I Trials Synergy  little is known a priori about actual clinical effects of the two agents used together The set of possible dose pairs is much larger than the usual interval of doses in the single-agent case

Difficulties in Two-Agent Phase I Trials Due to synergy, little is known a priori about actual clinical effects of the two agents used together Dose-finding must be sequential and adaptive for ethical reasons Sample sizes typically are very small Patient h e tero g en E ity may be substantial

Previous Approaches to the Problem: 1)Select a combination based on “Total Equivalent Dose” (Simon and Korn;1990,1991) 2) Use a single-agent method (e.g. the CRM, isotonic regression) on a “staircase” of dose pairs A B

Single Agent Dose-Toxicity Curve

Gem/CTX Trial (R. Millikan, P.I.) -2 patients per cohort -20 patients in Stage 1 (10 cohorts) -40 patients in Stage 2 (20 cohorts) -Stage 1 doses : {(144, 72), (300, 150), … (1200, 600)} mg/m 2 (gemcitabine, cyclophosphamide) - Target toxicity probability P TOX * = 0.30

A Hypothetical Dose-Toxicity Surface

“Isotoxic” Dose Pair Contours in the Gemcitabine-Cyclophosphamide Plane

A New Two-Stage Method 1) Information on the single-agents used alone is obtained from  Historical data or  Elicited from the physician 2) Nothing is assumed, quantitatively, about synergistic effects of the two agents used together

Dose-Finding On Fixed L 1 and Random L 2

Probability Model Prob(Toxicity) as a function of the combination contains the two single-agent Toxicity probabilities as sub-models Model Parameters  = (  1 ,  2,  3 )  1 = Parameters for agent 1 alone  2 = Parameters for agent 2 alone  3 = Parameters for synergistic effects

Probability Model x = (x 1, x 2 ) = doses of the two agents  x  Prob(Toxicity | x,  )  1  x 1  1  Prob(Toxicity | x 1,  1 )  2  x 2  2  Prob(Toxicity | x 2,  2 ) x 1 and x 2 are standardized to [0, 1]

Admissibility Conditions

Probability Model  1  1  1  2  2  2   3  3  3 

Probability Model Informative Priors on the single-agent parameters,  1 and  2, are obtained from historical data or elicited from the physician An Uninformative Prior is used for the parameters,  3, characterizing synergistic effects of the two agents used together

Single-Agent Prior Elicitation Algorithm 1.What is the highest dose having negligible (<5%) Toxicity? 2.What dose has the targeted (30%) Toxicity? 3.What dose above the target has unacceptably high (60%) Toxicity? 4.At what dose above the target are you nearly certain (99% sure) that Toxicity is above the target (30%) ?

Elicited Doses for the Single Agents

Dose-Finding Algorithm: Preliminaries 1) Determine cohort size, and sample sizes for each of the two stages 2) Determine a set D 1 of dose pairs x = (x 1,x 2 ) and fixed diagonal line L 1 for dose-finding in Stage 1 3) Elicit a target Prob(Toxicity, x) =  from the physician L 2 (data) = Dose pair contour where mean{Prob(Toxicity, x)|data} = 

For the Gem/CTX Trial : - 2 patients per cohort - 20 patients in stage 1 (10 cohorts) - 40 patients in stage 2 (20 cohorts) Stage 1 doses D 1 = {(.12,.12), (.25,.25), … (1,1)}  {(144, 72), (300, 150), … (1200, 600)} mg/m 2 (gemcitabine, cyclophosphamide) - Target Toxicity probability  =.30

Dose-Finding Algorithm Stage 1 : Treat each cohort at the dose pair on L 1 having mean Prob(toxicity) closest to the target (Ptox=.30). After the first toxicity, say at x*, add all pairs on L 1 below x* and pairs midway between those above x*. Stage 2 : Alternate cohorts between pairs on the upper left and lower right portions of L 2

Dose-Finding Criteria in Stage 2 Choose the dose pair for the next cohort to: 1) Maximize the amount of Information 2) Maximize Cancer-Killing Potential The algorithm optimizes these two criteria separately, and then chooses the average of the two optimal dose pairs

Cancer Killing Potential Moving from x n * = (x n,1 *, x n,2 * ) to x = (x 1, x 2 ) on L 2  change in cancer killing potential is K(x, x n * ) = (x 1 -x n,1 * ) + (x 2 -x n,2 * ) where = cancer-killing effect of 1 unit change in agent 1 relative to 1 unit change in agent 2. On L 2, one summand of K(x, x n * ) is >0 and the other is <0  Choose x to maximize K(x, x n * )

Information Fisher Information Matrix : I(x,  ) = [  (x,  ) (j)  (x,  ) (k) /  (x,  ){1-  (x,  )} ] where  (x,  ) (j) = ∂  (x,  )/ ∂  j Posterior Mean Information About  (x,  ) : I n (x) = E [ log{det I(x,  )} | data n ]

Computer Simulation Scenarios

Computer Simulation Results: Average | P(Tox | Selected Dose) – P TOX * |

True Prob(Toxicity) Computer Simulation Results

True Prob(Toxicity) Computer Simulation Results

True Prob(Toxicity) Computer Simulation Results

True Prob(Toxicity) Computer Simulation Results

Concluding Remarks -A 2-stage, outcome-adaptive, Bayesian method for dose- finding with two agents in a phase I clinical trial -In Stage 2, dose pairs are chosen to maximize Cancer-Killing Potential and/or Information - Several dose pairs may be selected for future study - Free state-of-the art Computer Software available