Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Probability and Statistics
Volume 2012, Article ID 317634, 18 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/317634
Research Article

Escalation with Overdose Control Using Ordinal Toxicity Grades for Cancer Phase I Clinical Trials

Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA

Received 29 June 2012; Accepted 10 September 2012

Academic Editor: Zhengjia Chen

Copyright © 2012 Mourad Tighiouart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. T. G. Roberts Jr., B. H. Goulart, L. Squitieri et al., “Trends in the risk and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 292, no. 17, pp. 2130–2140, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. National Cancer Institute, Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE), 2003, http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/ctc.html.
  3. J. O'Quigley, M. Pepe, and L. Fisher, “Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer,” Biometrics, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 33–48, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  4. C. Gatsonis and J. B. Greenhouse, “Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1377–1389, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. S. D. Durham and N. Flournoy, “Random walks for quantile estimation,” in Statistical Design Theory and Related Topics, pp. 467–476, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  6. E. L. Korn, D. Midthune, T. T. Chen, L. V. Rubinstein, M. C. Christian, and R. M. Simon, “A comparison of two phase I trial designs,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 13, no. 18, pp. 1799–1806, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Whitehead and H. Brunier, “Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 14, no. 9-10, pp. 885–893, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. Whitehead, “Bayesian decision procedures with application to dose-finding studies,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 201–208, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. Babb, A. Rogatko, and S. Zacks, “Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1103–1120, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  10. M. Gasparini and J. Eisele, “A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials,” Biometrics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 609–615, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  11. S. Mukhopadhyay, “Bayesian nonparametric inference on the dose level with specified response rate,” Biometrics, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 220–226, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. L. M. Haines, I. Perevozskaya, and W. F. Rosenberger, “Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials,” Biometrics, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 591–600, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  13. D. Faries, “Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 147–164, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. S. Moller, “An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 14, no. 9-10, pp. 911–922, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. N. Goodman, M. L. Zahurak, and S. Piantadosi, “Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1149–1161, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. O'Quigley and L. Z. Shen, “Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach,” Biometrics, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 673–684, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Piantadosi, J. D. Fisher, and S. Grossman, “Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 429–436, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. Y. K. Cheung and R. Chappell, “Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities,” Biometrics, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1177–1182, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  19. B. E. Storer, “An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose-response setting,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 2399–2408, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. D. H. Y. Leung and Y. G. Wang, “An extension of the continual reassessment method using decision theory,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 51–63, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. Zacks, A. Rogatko, and J. Babb, “Optimal Bayesian-feasible dose escalation for cancer phase I trials,” Statistics & Probability Letters, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 215–220, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  22. M. Tighiouart, A. Rogatko, and J. S. Babb, “Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials. Dose escalation with overdose control,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 24, no. 14, pp. 2183–2196, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. M. Tighiouart and A. Rogatko, “Dose finding with escalation with overdose control (EWOC) in cancer clinical trials,” Statistical Science, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 217–226, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. S. Lonial, J. Kaufman, M. Tighiouart et al., “A phase I/II trial combining high-dose melphalan and autologous transplant with bortezomib for multiple myeloma: a dose- and schedule-finding study,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 16, no. 20, pp. 5079–5086, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. R. Sinha, J. L. Kaufman, H. J. Khouri, N. King, P. J. Shenoy, C. Lewis et al., “A phase 1 dose escalation study of bortezomib combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, modified vincristine, and prednisone for untreated follicular lymphoma and other low-grade B-cell lymphomas,” Cancer, vol. 118, no. 14, pp. 3538–3548, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. H. Borghaei, K. Alpaugh, G. Hedlund et al., “Phase I dose escalation, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of naptumomab estafenatox alone in patients with advanced cancer and with docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 25, pp. 4116–4123, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. D. Cheng, J. S. Babb, C. Langer et al., “Individualized patient dosing in phase I clinical trials: the role of escalation with overdose control in PNU-214936,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 602–609, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. J. Schilder, J. M. Gallo, M. M. Millenson et al., “Phase I trial of multiple cycles of high-dose carboplatin, paclitaxel, and topotecan with peripheral-blood stem-cell support as front-line therapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1183–1194, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. G. M. Freedman, N. J. Meropol, E. R. Sigurdson et al., “Phase I trial of preoperative hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with incorporated boost and oral capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1389–1393, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. S. Babb and A. Rogatko, “Patient specific dosing in a cancer phase I clinical trial,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 2079–2090, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. Tighiouart and A. Rogatko, “Dose escalation with overdose control,” in Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments, S. Chevret, Ed., pp. 173–188, John Wiley & Sons, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  32. M. Tighiouart and A. Rogatko, “Dose finding in oncology—parametric methods,” in Dose Finding in Drug Development, N. Ting, Ed., pp. 59–72, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  33. A. Rogatko and M. Tighiouart, “Novel and efficient translational clinical trial designs in advanced prostate cancer,” in Prostate Cancer, L. Chung, W. Isaacs, and J. W. Simons, Eds., pp. 487–495, Humana Press, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  34. N. Ting, Dose Finding in Drug Development, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1st edition, 2006.
  35. S. Chevret, Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. N. H. Gordon and J. K. V. Willson, “Using toxicity grades in the design and analysis of cancer phase I clinical trials,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 11, no. 16, pp. 2063–2075, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. C. Wang, T. T. Chen, and I. Tyan, “Designs for phase I cancer clinical trials with differentiation of graded toxicity,” Communications in Statistics, vol. 29, no. 5-6, pp. 975–987, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. B. N. Bekele and P. F. Thall, “Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 99, no. 465, pp. 26–35, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  39. Z. Yuan, R. Chappell, and H. Bailey, “The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach,” Biometrics, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 173–179, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  40. R. F. Potthoff and S. L. George, “Flexible phase I clinical trials: allowing for nonbinary toxicity response and removal of other common limitations,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–228, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. B. N. Bekele, Y. S. Li, and Y. A. Ji, “Risk-group-specific dose finding based on an average toxicity score,” Biometrics, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 541–548, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  42. E. M. Van Meter, E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Bandyopadhyay, “Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 30, no. 17, pp. 2070–2080, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. E. M. Van Meter, E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Bandyopadhyay, “Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method,” Clinical Trials, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 303–313, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. A. Iasonos, S. Zohar, and J. O'Quigley, “Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs,” Clinical Trials, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 370–379, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. S. M. Lee, B. Cheng, and Y. K. Cheung, “Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints,” Biostatistics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 386–398, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. Z. Chen, M. Tighiouart, and J. Kowalski, “Dose escalation with overdose control using a quasi-continuous toxicity score in cancer phase I clinical trials,” Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 949–958, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, “Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines,” Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1087–1092, 1953. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. W. K. Hastings, “Monte carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications,” Biometrika, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 97–109, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. D. J. Lunn, A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Spiegelhalter, “WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility,” Statistics and Computing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 325–337, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. Y. K. Cheung, “Coherence principles in dose-finding studies,” Biometrika, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 863–873, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH