Dose-finding design using mixed-effect proportional odds model for longitudinal graded toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (30) ◽  
pp. 5430-5447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adélaïde Doussau ◽  
Rodolphe Thiébaut ◽  
Xavier Paoletti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Proportional Odds Model ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Toxicity Data ◽  
Proportional Odds ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (17) ◽  
pp. 2098-2108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Guosheng Yin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Innovations for phase I dose-finding designs in pediatric oncology clinical trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 217-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelaide Doussau ◽  
Birgit Geoerger ◽  
Irene Jiménez ◽  
Xavier Paoletti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Pediatric Oncology ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

Informed consent in phase I clinical trials: Implications for trends in design.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14077-e14077
Author(s):  
Paul Henry Frankel ◽  
Susan G. Groshen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Traditional Use ◽  
Phase I Studies ◽  
Definition Of

e14077 Background: Informed Consent (IC) is a critical aspect of human subjects protection. Institutional Review Boards are tasked with insuring proper IC as one aspect of protecting participants in clinical trials. Phase I trials in oncology present special issues with IC, as often neither the risks nor the benefits are well-known. This has resulted in carefully worded IC templates for Phase I studies based on the traditional use of dose-finding designs that are geared towards finding the “Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)”. As the definition of this term varies by study, the implication for patient risk and informed consent are rarely discussed. Methods: We reviewed Phase I designs to present options for improving the informed consent process for Phase I oncology trials. Results: Phase I studies have seen an increase in designs based on work from the early 1990s seeking a dose that results in a targeted percent of patients experiencing a “Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT)” to define the MTD. The most common definition of a DLT is a treatment-related toxicity that results in a particularly concerning severe toxicity (grade 3 or higher) in the first cycle of therapy and the most common rate targeted (in designs that define toxicity as a goal) is 25%. In that setting, while lower doses may have a lower likelihood of DLT, higher doses or the expansion cohort are likely to have a 25% chance of DLT if the target is pursued. This information is rarely quantitatively communicated in the informed consent. Conclusions: IRBs and investigators should consider communicating through informed consent the quantitative summary of goals of the study and related risk. For example, transparency suggests conveying when the goal (target) of the study is to find the dose where there is a one in four chance of experiencing a severe adverse event in the first cycle.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document