Download presentation
Published byVictor Waters Modified over 9 years ago
1
Jud Blatchford, PhD BIOM 6649 – Clinical Trials April 9th, 2015
Phase I Trial Designs Jud Blatchford, PhD BIOM 6649 – Clinical Trials April 9th, 2015
2
Table of Contents Orientation Introduction
Components of a Phase I Trial Phase I Trial Designs Rule-Based Designs Statistical Designs References Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
3
Orientation Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
4
Orientation Features of a Clinical Trial (CT) Study of human beings
Prospective Uses an intervention (i.e. changes some aspect of the subjects) Protects the safety of the subjects Follows an approved protocol Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
5
Orientation Phases of Clinical Trials
Phase I – First time an experimental drug or treatment is tested in humans to examine how well the drug is tolerated Phase II – Trials designed to examine if the drug or treatment has a biological treatment effect Phase III – Trials designed to assess the treatment effect on a clinically meaningful endpoint Phase IV – Post-marketing studies to gain additional information regarding the safety of the drug or treatment Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
6
Orientation Components of Study Design
Rationale – Establishing a legitimate reason for the study Design – Detailed description of what treatments will be administered, how they are administered, including a timeline of administration Subjects – Determining the group to be studied and how they will be assigned to treatment groups Data – Endpoint(s), obtaining data, and QA Sample Size Justification – Ensuring the study will be able to answer the scientific question with adequate power Study Closure – Archiving study data, analysis files Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
7
Introduction Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
8
Introduction Phase I Clinical Trials
An experimental drug, treatment, chemotherapeutic agent, cytotoxic agent, is studied—hereafter referred to as “drug” Primary Goal: Safety Investigate whether the new drug or combination of drugs can be administered safely to subjects Investigate optimal dosing and administration of drug Secondary Goal: Efficacy Offer a treatment option to subjects who have failed other treatment regimens Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
9
Introduction Underlying Assumptions
The drug kills both cancer cells and other cells The effect is dose-dependent, therefore: The efficacy of the drug increases with the dose The toxicity of the drug increases with the dose Logically, it would be optimal to give the subjects the highest dose of a drug that can be administered without unacceptable toxicity Fundamental Question: What is this dose? Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
10
Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)
Definition of MTD: The highest dose without observing an unacceptable rate of toxicity Aliases: Recommended Phase 2 Dose (RP2D) Phase 2 Recommended Dose (P2RD) Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
11
Components of a Phase I Trial
Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
12
Components of a Phase I Trial
Definition of a Dose-Limiting Toxicity (DLT) Clarify time-frame for experiencing a DLT Dose Levels How many dose levels will be tested? What will the smallest dose be? What will the starting dose be? Subjects How many subjects will be tested? Will single subjects or cohorts be tested at each dose? What dose-escalation scheme will be employed? Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
13
Definition of a DLT DLTs are typically defined using the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). DLTs are often grade ≥ 3 non-hematological and grade ≥ 4 hematological toxicities, which are definitely, probably, or possibly related to the drug. CTCAE Grades 0 – No AE 1 – Mild 2 – Moderate 3 – Severe 4 – Life threatening 5 – Death Degrees of Related Unrelated Unlikely Possibly Probably Definitely Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
14
Definition of a DLT The length of observation within which a DLT occurrence is “counted” should be explicitly stated in the protocol Typical lengths used are the first cycle of chemotherapy (often 3 weeks) Weight the trade-off between observation time for a DLT and efficiency in enrolling subjects Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
15
Choosing the Starting Dose
Goals: Dose high enough to have chance of efficacy Dose low enough to avoid a DLT Use data from animal pre-clinical studies Scale dose by body surface area (mg/m2) Studies that aren’t “first-in-human” studies may be informed from previous studies using the same drug Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
16
Choosing the Starting Dose
Choices Used: First find dose that is lethal in 10% of mice (LD10) Standard starting dose was 10% of this dose (MELD10), if no grade 4+ AEs observed in other species (rats, dogs, etc.) Find the highest dose for which the most sensitive animals investigated had no AEs Starting dose is 1/3 of this level (scaled) Find the minimal dose for which any toxicity is seen (TDL) Starting dose is 1/3 of the TDL Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
17
Choosing the Number of Dose Levels
Testing more dose levels to accurately estimate the MTD creates a more cumbersome trial, and may require more subjects Common number of levels is 4 to 7 Observed number has ranged from 3 to 14 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
18
Choosing the Dose Levels
Desire to progress through possible doses in a quick (e.g. exponential) manner Ethical considerations should guide the dose escalation scheme used Linear sequence of numbers may be inefficient 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, … Famous sequence of increasing numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, … Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
19
The Fibonacci Sequence
Term (n) Value (fn) Ratio (fn / fn-1) 1 - 2 1.000 3 2.000 4 1.500 5 1.667 6 8 1.600 7 13 1.625 21 1.615 9 34 1.619 10 55 1.618 11 89 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
20
The Golden Ratio Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
21
The Golden Ratio Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
22
Fibonacci Sequence in Nature
Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
23
Spirals in a Pine Cone Clockwise from Center
Counter-clockwise from Center Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
24
Modified Fibonacci Dose Escalation (MFDE)
Term (n) Ratio (fn / fn-1) Ratio (fn / f1) Fib. Seq. Comparison 1 - 1.00 Similar 2 2.00 3 1.67 3.33 4 1.50 5.00 5 1.40 7.00 6 1.33 9.33 8 7 12.44 13 16.59 21 Conservative 9 22.12 34 10 29.50 55 11 39.33 89 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
25
Ethical Considerations
Approach the MTD from below (under-estimates MTD) Bracketing the MTD is unbiased and more efficient Expected efficacy is minimal Historical response rate is 11%; temp. stable rate is 34% 40% expect a cure Subjects suffer significant toxicity Rate of grade 4 toxicity is 14%; death rate is 0.5% What subjects are told is very important Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
26
Phase I Trial Designs Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
27
Rule-Based Designs Traditional Escalation Rule
Variations of the Traditional Escalation Rule Best of 5 Rule Up-and-Down Designs 2-Stage Designs Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
28
Traditional Escalation Rule (TER)
3 subjects receive dose di 0 DLTs 1 DLT 2 or 3 DLTs Escalate - 3 subjects receive dose di+1 3 more subjects at dose di Stop escalation De-escalate to di-1 0 DLTs (1/6 with DLT) 1—3 DLTs (≥ 2/6 with DLT) Escalate - 3 subjects receive dose di+1 Stop escalation De-escalate to di-1 De-escalate until a level is reached where at least 6 subjects are treated and at most 1 DLT occurs. MTD is the highest dose where at least 6 subjects were treated with at most 1 DLT. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
29
Evaluating the TER Benefits Criticisms Conservative escalation
Ease of implementation Rules regarding dose assignment are clear Statistical models not fit after each subject Design is robust Will arrive at reasonable estimate of MTD Many subjects treated at low, ineffective doses At least 2 subjects treated at level above MTD The true MTD is underestimated Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
30
Variations to TER After escalation stops, fill out all lower levels until at least 6 subjects are treated at each level Treat subjects at a dose level between the level where escalation stopped and the next lower level Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
31
Best of 5 Rule 3 subjects receive dose di 0 DLTs 1 or 2 DLTs 3 DLTs
Escalate to dose di+1 1 more at dose di Stop escalation 1/4 with DLT 2/4 with DLTs 3/4 with DLTs Escalate to dose di+1 1 more at dose di Stop escalation 2/5 with DLTs 3/5 with DLTs Escalate to dose di+1 Stop escalation MTD is the dose prior to the dose on which escalation stopped. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
32
Up-and-Down Design (UaD)
1 subject receives dose di 0 DLT 1 DLT Escalate to dose di+1 De-escalate to di-1 Perform UaD for a pre-specified number of subjects (j). MTD is the dose that would be assigned to the j+1st subject. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
33
Storer’s C Design (UaD-C)
1 subject receives dose di 0 DLT 1 DLT If 2 consecutive subjects with 0 DLT, escalate to dose di+1; else give dose di De-escalate to di-1 Perform UaD for a pre-specified number of subjects (j). MTD is the dose that would be assigned to the j+1st subject. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
34
Storer’s Two-Stage BC Design (UaD-BC)
1 subject receives dose di 0 DLT 1 DLT Escalate to dose di+1 De-escalate to di-1 Stage 2 1 subject receives dose di-1 0 DLT 1 DLT If 2 consecutive subjects with 0 DLT, escalate to dose di; else give dose di-1 De-escalate to di-2 Perform UaD for a pre-specified number of subjects (j). MTD is the dose that would be assigned to the j+1st subject. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
35
Accelerated Titration Designs
Extension by Simon of Storer’s work Design 1: TER Designs 2—4 Stage 1: Single subjects until first DLT or second grade 2 AE Stage 2: TER Design 2: Toxicities observed in first cycle only Design 3: Toxicities may be observed in any cycle Design 4: Same as 3 except escalation factor is 2.0 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
36
Statistical Designs Dose escalation guided by a statistical model of the relationship between dose and toxic response Continual Reassessment Method Modifications to the CRM 2-Stage CRM Designs TITE-CRM Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
37
Continual Reassessment Method (CRM)
First proposed by O’Quigley in 1990 Subjects are enrolled individually A dose-toxicity function is assumed f(d | α) = Pr{DLT | α} After each patient completes observation, the estimate of α is updated Strategy is to assign the dose closest to the estimated MTD to each subject Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
38
Considerations for the CRM
Number of dose levels Initial estimates of toxicity rates at each dose level Target rate of DLT (θ) Dose-toxicity function Escalation restrictions Number of subjects to be treated Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
39
Considerations Number of Dose Levels Initial Estimates of Toxicity
Typically between 3 and 8 In general, as the number of dose levels in the trial increases, the number of subjects needed to accurately estimate the MTD will increase The estimates should bound the target rate (θ) The CRM is not robust when doses tested do not induce toxicity Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
40
Choosing a Dose-Response Function
Logistic Function Logistic Regression Let p = Pr{DLT} ln 𝑝 1−𝑝 = 𝛽0+𝛽1(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) Solving for p we have: 𝑝= 𝑒 𝛽0+𝛽1(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) 1+ 𝑒 𝛽0+𝛽1(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) One-parameter model: 𝑝= 𝑒 3+α(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) 1+ 𝑒 3+α(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
41
Choosing a Dose-Response Function
Hyperbolic Tangent Function Scaled Tanh Function 𝑇𝑎𝑛ℎ= 𝑒 𝑥 − 𝑒 −𝑥 𝑒 𝑥 + 𝑒 −𝑥 = 𝑒 2𝑥 −1 𝑒 2𝑥 +1 Pr{DLT}= 𝑒 2(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) −1 2𝑒 2(𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒) −α Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
42
Choosing a Dose-Response Function
CDF of Normal Distribution P{DLT}= 1 2𝜋 𝜎 −∞ 𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑒 − (𝑥−𝜇) 2 2𝜎 2 𝑑𝑥 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
43
The Method of CRM Dose-toxicity function and θ are chosen a-priori
Function is re-fit (i.e. new estimate of α is obtained) after each subject’s observed toxicity New function is determined from the a-priori function and the vector of observed toxicities Curve shifts to the right without toxicity; left with toxicity Next subject is treated at the dose level whose Pr{DLT} is closest to θ Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
44
Distributions of DLT Occurrence By Dose
Priors for Subject 1 Priors for Subject 26 High degree of overlap of probabilities between doses Separation between dose levels becoming clearer Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
45
Evaluating the CRM Benefits Criticisms
Few subjects are treated at low, ineffective doses Subjects are treated at doses believed at the time to be the most efficacious, yet safe Starting dose is too high Dose escalation is too aggressive Trial length is too long Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
46
Modified CRM Start at the lowest dose level under consideration
Enroll two or three subjects at each cohort Constrain dose escalation to increase by at most one dose level Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
47
“Practical” CRM Proposed by Piantadosi
Based on pre-clinical toxicity data: Choose dose that would produce low (10%) rate of DLT Choose dose that would produce high (90%) rate of DLT Estimate dose/toxicity curve that fits these 2 points Use the dose/toxicity curve to find dose for θ Treat three subjects at this level, then re-estimate the dose-toxicity curve, dose for θ, and tx 3 more Repeat until target dose changes by < 10% Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
48
2-Stage CRM Designs Stage 1: TER Stage 2: CRM
“2 + 2” is a more common first stage than “3 + 3” Continue until first toxicity is observed Stage 2: CRM After first toxicity, fit the dose-response curve using the toxicity data accrued thus far Choose dose for next cohort of 2 as dose with estimated rate of DLT closest to θ Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
49
Time-to-Event CRM (TITE-CRM)
Builds on the CRM described thus far Uses information from subjects accrued, even if they haven’t finished observation period Subjects with DLT are given full weight Subjects without DLT are given weight t/T. Allows subjects to be enrolled without waiting for prior cohorts to finish Benefits studies with delayed toxicity (e.g. radiation studies) Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
50
Example of a TITE-CRM Trial
Subject accrual is instantaneous The majority of doses administered are near MTD Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
51
Additional TITE-CRM Considerations
Choice of weight function Uniform toxicities may use a linear function Expecting late toxicities may use a convex function Expecting early toxicities may use a concave function Setting a Margin (i.e. upper limit) on toxicity If θ = 0.20 and Margin = 0.05, dose for next subject will be dose closest to 0.20 and not greater than 0.25 Determine cumulative time exposure (B) before allowing escalation (e.g. B = 2) Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
52
Design Comparisons Fitting a model to the data will improve the accuracy of the MTD found by rule-based designs Model-guided designs only perform well if assumptions are met (θ in range of doses tested) Conflicting results when designs compared Few comparisons made on “level playing field” Both rule-based and model-guided designs are in common use, for good reason Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
53
Important Future Work “Individualized” Designs
Development of designs allowing for within-subject dose escalation Development of designs for targeted agents Designs for trials expecting minimal toxicity Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
54
Pharmacokinetic Profiles
Often of interest in a phase 1 study Studies how the body processes the drug Parameters of interest are typically: Cmax – Maximum concentration of drug Tmax – Time until the maximum concentration of drug λ – Elimination constant – describes rate of loss from body T1/2 – Half-life of the drug AUC – Area under the concentration curve Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
55
Calculation of PK Parameters
Cmax & Tmax – Directly from table of results λ = Taken from regression of ln(C) on time T1/2 Create exponential decay equation from above regression Solve for T when the concentration is half of reference amt AUC = AUC0-t + AUCt-∞ AUC0-t – Use trapezoidal rule AUCt-∞ = Ct / λ Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
56
Example Calculations From regression of ln(C) on time we get:
ln (C) = 2.25 – 0.58 T, so λ = 0.58 (not -0.58) C = exp(2.25) * exp(-0.58)T C = 9.5(-.56)T 4.75 = 9.5(-0.56)T to solve for T1/2 ½ = -0.56T ln(1/2) = T*ln(-0.56) T = 1.19 so T1/2 = 1.19 hours AUC = /0.58 = 12.18 Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
57
PK Design Considerations
Sampling Times Important to have accurate estimates of Cmax Cluster several times around expected Tmax Sampling Period Important to have accurate estimate of λ US FDA requires times to capture at least 3 half-lives after Tmax Bioequivalence Trials Create 90% CIs for ln[µ(A)] - ln[µ(B)], µ = PK parameter Check if all CIs are within 0.80 to 1.25 range Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
58
References Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
59
References 1989. Storer BE. Design and Analysis of Phase I Clinical Trials. Biometrics, 45, 925— O’Quigley J, Pepe M, and Fisher L. Continual Reassessment Method: A Practical Design for Phase I Clinical Trials in Cancer. Biometrics, 46, 33— Korn EL, and Simon R. Using the Tolerable-Dose Diagram in the Design of Phase I Combination Chemotherapy Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11 (4), 794— Mick R, and Ratain MJ. Model-Guided Determination of Maximum Tolerated Dose in Phase I Clinical Trials: Evidence for Increased Precision. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85 (3), 217— Faries D. Practical Modifications of the Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 4 (2), 147— Piantadosi S, and Liu G. Improved Designs for Dose Escalation Studies Using Pharmacokinetic Measurements. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 1605— Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantarjian HM, Legha SS, and Raber MN. Design and Results of Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: Three-Year Experience at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14 (1), 287— Durham SD, Flournoy N, and Rosenberger WF. A Random Walk Rule for Phase I Clinical Trials. Biometrics, 53, 745—760. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
60
References (Continued)
1997. Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L, Arbuck SG, Collins J, and Christian MC. Accelerated Titration Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials in Oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 89 (15), 1138— Friedman LM, Furberg CD, and DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. Springer Whitehead J, and Williamson D. Bayesian Decision Procedures Based on Logistic Regression Models for Dose-Finding Studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 8 (3), 445— Reiner E, Paoletti X, and O’Quigley J. Operating Characteristics of the Standard Phase I Clinical Trial Design. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 30, 303— Cheung YK, and Chappell R. Sequential Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials with Late-Onset Toxicities. Biometrics, 56, 1177— Eisenhauer EA, O’Dwyer PJ, Christian M, and Humphrey JS. Phase I Clinical Trial Design in Cancer Drug Development. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18 (3), 684— Wang O, and Faries DE. A Two-Stage Dose Selection Strategy in Phase I Trials with Wide Dose Ranges. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10 (3), 319— Lin Y, and Shih WJ. Statistical Properties of the Traditional Algorithm-Based Designs for Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. Biostatistics, 2 (2), 203—215. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
61
References (Continued)
2001. Ishizuka N, and Ohashi Y. The Continual Reassessment Method and Its Applications: A Bayesian Methodology for Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 2661— Potter PM. Adaptive Dose Finding for Phase I Clinical Trials of Drugs Used for Chemotherapy of Cancer. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1805— Agrawal M, and Emanuel EJ. Ethics of Phase I Oncology Studies: Reexamining the Arguments and Data. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290 (8), 1075— Ivanova A, Montazer-Haghighi A, Mohanty SG, and Durham SD. Improved Up-and-Down Designs for Phase I Trials. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 69— Stylianou M, and Follmann DA. The Accelerated Biased Coin Up-and-Down Design in Phase I Trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14 (1), 249— Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, Yamamoto S, Rubinstein L, Budd T, Shoemaker D, Emanuel EJ, and Grady C. Risks and Benefits of Phase I Oncology Trials, 1991 Through New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 895— Crowley J, and Ankerst DP. Handbook of Statistics in Clinical Oncology. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
62
References (Continued)
Potter DM. Phase I Studies of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Cancer Patients: A Review of the Designs. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 16, 579—604. DOI: / Jud Blatchford, PhD Phase I Trial Designs
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.