Dataset Information

Evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents along with guidance based on simulation studies.

ABSTRACT: Combinational therapy that combines two or more therapeutic agents is very common in cancer treatment. Currently, many clinical trials aim to assess feasibility, safety and activity of combinational therapeutics to achieve synergistic response. Dose-finding for combinational agents is considerably more complex than single agent, because only partial order of dose combinations' toxicity is known. Prototypical phase I designs may not adequately capture this complexity thus limiting identification of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of combinational agents. In response, novel phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents have been extensively proposed. However, with so many available designs, studies that compare their performances and explore the impact of design parameters, along with providing recommendations are limited. We are evaluating available phase I designs that identify a single MTD for combinational agents using simulation studies under various conditions. We are also exploring the influences of different design parameters and summarizing the risks/benefits of each design to provide general guidance in design selection.

SUBMITTER: Wang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10291942 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents along with guidance based on simulation studies.

Wang Shu S Sayour Elias E Lee Ji-Hyun JH

Journal of applied statistics 20220803 9

Combinational therapy that combines two or more therapeutic agents is very common in cancer treatment. Currently, many clinical trials aim to assess feasibility, safety and activity of combinational therapeutics to achieve synergistic response. Dose-finding for combinational agents is considerably more complex than single agent, because only partial order of dose combinations' toxicity is known. Prototypical phase I designs may not adequately capture this complexity thus limiting identification ...[more]

PMID: 37378271

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundViral haemorrhagic fevers are characterized by irregular outbreaks with high mortality rate. Difficulties arise when implementing therapeutic trials in this context. The outbreak duration is hard to predict and can be short compared to delays of trial launch and number of subject needed (NSN) recruitment. Our objectives were to compare, using clinical trial simulation, different trial designs for experimental treatment evaluation in various outbreak scenarios.MethodsFour type of designs were compared: fixed or group-sequential, each being single- or two-arm. The primary outcome was 14-day survival rate. For single-arm designs, results were compared to a pre-trial historical survival rate pH. Treatments efficacy was evaluated by one-sided tests of proportion (fixed designs) and Whitehead triangular tests (group-sequential designs) with type-I-error = 0.025. Both survival rates in the control arm pC and survival rate differences Δ (including 0) varied. Three specific cases were considered: "standard" (fixed pC, reaching NSN for fixed designs and maximum sample size NMax for group-sequential designs); "changing with time" (increased pC over time); "stopping of recruitment" (epidemic ends). We calculated the proportion of simulated trials showing treatment efficacy, with K = 93,639 simulated trials to get a type-I-error PI95% of [0.024;0.026].ResultsUnder H0 (Δ = 0), for the "standard" case, the type-I-error was maintained regardless of trial designs. For "changing with time" case, when pC > pH, type-I-error was inflated, and when pC < pH it decreased. Wrong conclusions were more often observed for single-arm designs due to an increase of Δ over time. Under H1 (Δ = + 0.2), for the "standard" case, the power was similar between single- and two-arm designs when pC = pH. For "stopping of recruitment" case, single-arm performed better than two-arm designs, and fixed designs reported higher power than group-sequential designs. A web R-Shiny application was developed.ConclusionsAt an outbreak beginning, group-sequential two-arm trials should be preferred, as the infected cases number increases allowing to conduct a strong randomized control trial. Group-sequential designs allow early termination of trials in cases of harmful experimental treatment. After the epidemic peak, fixed single-arm design should be preferred, as the cases number decreases but this assumes a high level of confidence on the pre-trial historical survival rate.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents along with guidance based on simulation studies.

Publications

Evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents along with guidance based on simulation studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets