Motivating Trial Vidaza ® in AML patients undergoing allotx  Activates genes for apoptosis  Modifies phenotype of leukemic cells to potentiate a GVL.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Interim Analysis in Clinical Trials: A Bayesian Approach in the Regulatory Setting Telba Z. Irony, Ph.D. and Gene Pennello, Ph.D. Division of Biostatistics.
Advertisements

Phase II/III Design: Case Study
Bayesian posterior predictive probability - what do interim analyses mean for decision making? Oscar Della Pasqua & Gijs Santen Clinical Pharmacology Modelling.
Optimal Drug Development Programs and Efficient Licensing and Reimbursement Regimens Neil Hawkins Karl Claxton CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS.
©GoldSim Technology Group LLC., 2012 Optimization in GoldSim Jason Lillywhite and Ryan Roper June 2012 Webinar.
Getting the help of SAS in Clinical Trial setting: Monitoring and Simulations Presented By: Mehmet Kocak.
Re-Examination of the Design of Early Clinical Trials for Molecularly Targeted Drugs Richard Simon, D.Sc. National Cancer Institute linus.nci.nih.gov/brb.
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:
Single-Subject Designs
Analysis of Complex Survey Data
(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.
Efficacy of Denileukin Diftitox Retreatment in Patients with Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Who Relapsed After Initial Response 1 Identification of an Active,
Prospective Subset Analysis in Therapeutic Vaccine Studies Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute
Computer Vision Lecture 8 Performance Evaluation.
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.
Testing People Scientifically.  Clinical trials are research studies in which people help doctors and researchers find ways to improve health care. Each.
Clinical Trials 2015 Practical Session 1. Q1: List three parameters (quantities) necessary for the determination of sample size (n) for a Phase III clinical.
Dose-Finding with Two Agents in Phase I Oncology Trials Thall, Millikan, Mueller & Lee, Biometrics, 2003.
Arsenic Trioxide (ATO) in the Consolidation Treatment of Newly Diagnosed APL — First Interim Analysis of a Randomized Trial (APL 2006) by the French Belgian.
Nonclinical Perspective on Initiating Phase 1 Studies for Small Molecular Weight Compounds John K. Leighton, PH.D., DABT Supervisory Pharmacologist Division.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2007 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 3: Incomplete Data in Longitudinal Studies.
Experimental Design and Statistical Considerations in Translational Cancer Research (in 15 minutes) Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD Associate Professor of.
Result of Interim Analysis of Overall Survival in the GCIG ICON7 Phase III Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab in Women with Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer.
 A test of a new intervention or treatment on people.
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.
2005MEE Software Engineering Lecture 11 – Optimisation Techniques.
Learning the Structure of Related Tasks Presented by Lihan He Machine Learning Reading Group Duke University 02/03/2006 A. Niculescu-Mizil, R. Caruana.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2006 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 4: An Alternative to Last-Observation-Carried-Forward:
Program Design. The design process How do you go about writing a program? –It’s like many other things in life Understand the problem to be solved Develop.
01/20151 EPI 5344: Survival Analysis in Epidemiology Actuarial and Kaplan-Meier methods February 24, 2015 Dr. N. Birkett, School of Epidemiology, Public.
01/20151 EPI 5344: Survival Analysis in Epidemiology Cox regression: Introduction March 17, 2015 Dr. N. Birkett, School of Epidemiology, Public Health.
Chapter 8. Process and Measurement System Capability Analysis
A Phase 3 Prospective, Randomized, International Study (MMY-3021) Comparing Subcutaneous and Intravenous Administration of Bortezomib in Patients with.
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.
01/20151 EPI 5344: Survival Analysis in Epidemiology Hazard March 3, 2015 Dr. N. Birkett, School of Epidemiology, Public Health & Preventive Medicine,
The Standard Genetic Algorithm Start with a “population” of “individuals” Rank these individuals according to their “fitness” Select pairs of individuals.
Ibrutinib in Combination with Rituximab (iR) Is Well Tolerated and Induces a High Rate of Durable Remissions in Patients with High- Risk Chronic Lymphocytic.
#WEEK 3: RELIABILITY-TEST DOCUMENTATION AND OTHER ITEMS NEEDED FOR RELIABILITY TESTING 2 August 2006.
Pharmacogenetics of Irinotecan Clinical perspectives: utility of genotyping Mark J. Ratain, MD University of Chicago 11/3/04.
| 1 Application of a Bayesian strategy for monitoring multiple outcomes in early oncology clinical trials Application of a Bayesian strategy for monitoring.
© 2010 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Chapter 12 Clinical Epidemiology.
Daunorubicin VS Mitoxantrone VS Idarubicin As Induction and Consolidation Chemotherapy for Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia : The EORTC and GIMEMA Groups.
Risk Factors for Linezolid-Associated Thrombocytopenia in Adult Patients Cristina Gervasoni Ospedale Luigi Sacco, Milano.
Romidepsin in Association with CHOP in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results of the Phase Ib/II Ro-CHOP Study Dupuis J et al. Proc ASH.
Kantarjian HM et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract Long-Term Follow-Up of Ongoing Patients in 2 Studies of Omacetaxine Mepesuccinate for Chronic Myeloid.
Pharmacoepidemiology Of Multiple Myeloma Treatment Patterns, Safety And Effectiveness In Real Life Conditions Aurore Palmaro Thesis directors: Dr Maryse.
Results from the International, Randomized Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib versus Chlorambucil in Patients 65 Years and Older with Treatment-Naïve CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2TM)1.
Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.
Belani CP et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract CRA8000. (Oral Presentation)
PHASE I/II STUDY OF PEGYLATED LIPOSOMAL DOXORUCIN (PLD) AND GEMCITABINE (GEM) IN RECURRENT PLATIN RESISTANT OVARIAN CANCER (OC). A Study of the VWOG.
Overview of Standard Phase II Design Issues
Randomized, Open-Label Phase 1/2 Study of Pomalidomide Alone or in Combination with Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple.
Mateos MV et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 403.
Ensuring variations in clinical practice are represented accurately in the new national cancer chemotherapy (SACT) programme Dr Ken Lloyd, Sue Forsey.
Strategies for Implementing Flexible Clinical Trials Jerald S. Schindler, Dr.P.H. Cytel Pharmaceutical Research Services 2006 FDA/Industry Statistics Workshop.
Dose-finding designs incorporating toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles and continuous efficacy outcome Sumithra J. Mandrekar Mayo Clinic Invited.
Niesvizky R et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 619.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 857.
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. doi: /nrclinonc
Statistical Methods for Biotechnology Products II
CTCL: INNOVATIVE TREATMENTS GEMCITABINE
DOSE SPACING IN EARLY DOSE RESPONSE CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGNS
This program will include a discussion of off-label treatment and investigational agents not approved by the FDA for use in the US, and data that were.
Pollyea DA et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract 6505.
Extensions of the TEQR and mTPI designs including non-monotone efficacy in addition to toxicity in dose selection Revathi Ananthakrishnan The 3rd Stat4Onc.
Maximizing Disease-Free Survival in Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.
Peter Loch University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona USA
Theis Lange and Shanmei Liao
Presentation transcript:

Motivating Trial Vidaza ® in AML patients undergoing allotx  Activates genes for apoptosis  Modifies phenotype of leukemic cells to potentiate a GVL effect Dose-toxicity profile of Vidaza ® is unknown The cumulative risk of toxicity from repeated administrations is unknown Goal: Jointly optimize (Dose, Schedule) Optimizing Dose and Schedule (Braun, Thall, Nguyen, deLima, 2007)

“Schedule” is a predetermined number of courses and days of administration within each course “Dose” = dose per administration - Example, starting at time 0 : s (1) = (0, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9) s (2) = ( s (1), s (1) + 14 days ) = (0, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23), etc. -The agent may be administered as frequently as desired to each patient, provided the (dose,schedule) pair is sufficiently SAFE - A patient’s actual administration times in the trial may deviate from the scheduled times

One cycle of an agent is administered at a fixed sequence of successive times s 1 < s 2 <... < s k, the patient rests, & this is repeated one or more times. How many cycles can be given “safely?” _______________________________________________ 0 s 1 s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 s 7 s 8 rest

Hazard of toxicity from one administration : A simple 3-parameter piecewise linear model Each dose has its own 3-parameter triangle for the one-administration hazard t = time in days h(t)

Cumulative hazard of toxicity from multiple administrations at a given dose t = time in days H(t)

Cumulative hazard of toxicity at day 10 t = time in days H(t)

Cumulative Hazard of Toxicity by t* e = time of study entry s j = time of j th administration after e  (t* | dose, schedule)} = ∫ [0, t*]  j h{ u - ( e + s j ) | dose} d u Pr(Toxicity by time t* | dose, schedule) = F(t* | d,s,  ) = 1 – e -  (t* | dose, schedule) replaces the usual Pr(toxicity | dose) used for binary outcomes, ignoring schedule

Dose per Administration (mg/m2)

Treat 1 st patient at the lowest (dose, schedule) pair Based on current Time-to-Toxicity data, treat each patient at the best (dose, schedule) pair Do not “skip” untried (dose, schedule) pairs If no (dose, schedule) pair is acceptable  Stop the trial Trial Conduct

Dose per Administration (mg/m2)

What Actually Happened in The Vidaza ® Trial

Since only 1 toxicity occurred in the first 27 patients, Dr. de Lima decided to add 4 higher dose levels of Vidaza: 32, 40, 48, 56 mg/m 2 After receiving IRB approval, the trial was re- started with 4x7 = 28 (dose,schedule) combinations

16 new (dose, schedule) pairs

Final Optimal Combination (40 mg/m 2 per administration, 3 cycles)

A case where all (dose,schedule) combinations are unacceptably toxic

After pat. #2 began treatment at (8 mg/m 2, 2 cycles), pat. # 1 treated at (8 mg/m 2, 1 cycle) experienced toxicity

All (dose,schedule) pairs are too toxic  The Trial is Stopped Early T Dose-schedule toxicity cop

Hazard of toxicity from one administration b a = area c

Final Data Analysis Posterior mean and standard deviation (SD) of per-administration hazard parameters in the Bayesian model for Pr(toxicity| PAD, number of cycles). Area a Days to Peak of Hazard b Days from Peak of Hazard to End c Duration (Days) b + c PADMean (SD) (0.0034) 14.5 (24.1)8.7 (12.8)23.2 (27.8) (0.0041) 14.9 (22.9)14.4 (21.6)29.4 (31.5) (0.0049) 11.7 (25.7)20.3 (38.9)32.0 (47.3) (0.0054) 15.9 (12.4)31.3 (29.4)47.3 (26.6) (0.0160) 14.0 (11.9)32.0 (29.0)46.0 (26.5)

Final Data Analysis Posterior mean ptox = probability of toxicity by day 116 Per Administration Dose of Vidaza (mg/m 2 ) Number of Cycles

For ptox = Pr(toxicity within 116 days), each entry is the posterior value of Prob( ptox > 0.30 ). For each combination of (Number of Cycles, Per-Administration Dose), A = acceptable toxicity, T = unacceptable toxicity. Final Data Analysis Per Administration Dose of Vidaza (mg/m 2 ) Number of Cycles A A A A A T T A A A A A A T A A A A A A A A A A

Take-Away Messages 1) The optimal combination (3 cycles, 32 mg/m 2 per day) would not have been found using ANY other phase I methods. 2) Current work is to incorporate progression- free survival time, to be used along with time- to-toxicity, into the method.

Conclusions Dose-Schedule Algorithm The Dose-Schedule Algorithm reliably 1) Finds (Dose,Schedule) pairs having specified Pr(Toxicity by day t) 2) Stops if no (Dose,Schedule) is acceptable Implementation is Hard Work, but a free computer program “Dose Schedule Finder” is available from