Continual reassessment method for dose escalation clinical trials in oncology: a comparison of prior skeleton approaches using AZD3514 data

• Published in: BMC cancer 2016-08, Vol.16 (1), p.703-703, Article 703
• Main Authors: James, Gareth D, Symeonides, Stefan N, Marshall, Jayne, Young, Julia, Clack, Glen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Androgen Antagonists - administration & dosage; Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage; Bayes Theorem; Bayesian statistical decision theory; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Computer Simulation; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Male; Management; Maximum Tolerated Dose; Models, Theoretical; Oncology; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant - drug therapy; Pyridazines - administration & dosage; Skeleton
• ISSN: 1471-2407; 1471-2407
• DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2702-6

The continual reassessment method (CRM) requires an underlying model of the dose-toxicity relationship ("prior skeleton") and there is limited guidance of what this should be when little is known about this association. In this manuscript the impact of applying the CRM with different prior skeleton approaches and the 3 + 3 method are compared in terms of ability to determine the true maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and number of patients allocated to sub-optimal and toxic doses. Post-hoc dose-escalation analyses on real-life clinical trial data on an early oncology compound (AZD3514), using the 3 + 3 method and CRM using six different prior skeleton approaches. All methods correctly identified the true MTD. The 3 + 3 method allocated six patients to both sub-optimal and toxic doses. All CRM approaches allocated four patients to sub-optimal doses. No patients were allocated to toxic doses from sigmoidal, two from conservative and five from other approaches. Prior skeletons for the CRM for phase 1 clinical trials are proposed in this manuscript and applied to a real clinical trial dataset. Highly accurate initial skeleton estimates may not be essential to determine the true MTD, and, as expected, all CRM methods out-performed the 3 + 3 method. There were differences in performance between skeletons. The choice of skeleton should depend on whether minimizing the number of patients allocated to suboptimal or toxic doses is more important. NCT01162395 , Trial date of first registration: July 13, 2010.