SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Adaptive Dose Finding Using Toxicity
Probability IntervalsProbability Intervals
Neby Bekele, PhDy ,
Senior Director
Gil d S iGilead Sciences
1Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Outline of TalkOutline of Talk
 Phase I Clinical Trials in Oncologygy
 Overview of common methods
– 3+3 Design3 3 Design
– Model Based Alternatives
 Overview of the TPI method Overview of the TPI method
 Implementation and Software Demonstration
 Concluding Remarks
2Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Phase I Clinical Trials in OncologyPhase I Clinical Trials in Oncology
 Given a set of doses of a new agent find a dose
with an “acceptable” level of toxicityy
 Underlying Assumptions:
– We explicitly assume that the probability of toxicityWe explicitly assume that the probability of toxicity
increases with dose
– While implicitly assuming that the probability of
response increases with dose
3Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Phase I Clinical Trials in OncologyPhase I Clinical Trials in Oncology
 Implications of underlying assumptions:
A higher dose is worse because it is more likely toA higher dose is worse, because it is more likely to
cause toxicity while also being better because it is
more likely to have an anti-tumor effecty
Goal: Finding the dose that balances benefit
relative to risk (i.e., the MTD)( )
4Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Practical Considerations for Phase I Oncology
Clinical TrialsClinical Trials
 For ethical reasons doses must be selected For ethical reasons, doses must be selected
sequentially, for small cohorts of patients
 It may be the case that no dose is safe It may be the case that no dose is safe
 The maximum sample size is usually very small
 Patient heterogeneity is usually ignored
 Little is known about the dose-toxicity curvey
 Evaluating toxicity usually takes weeks
 Whil t i iti f i t d
5Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
 While toxicities are of various types and
severities, this is usually ignored
Practical Considerations for Phase I Oncology
Clinical TrialsClinical Trials
 For ethical reasons doses must be selected For ethical reasons, doses must be selected
sequentially, for small cohorts of patients
 Phase I is often ethical only for patients with Phase I is often ethical only for patients with
little or no therapeutic alternative
– Patients typically are pre-treated, with advanced ora e s yp ca y a e p e ea ed, ad a ced o
resistant disease, little chance of response
– Dose-finding typically is done in terms of toxicity
only to find a “maximum tolerated dose”only, to find a maximum tolerated dose
6Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Typical Phase I Oncology Clinical Trial SetupTypical Phase I Oncology Clinical Trial Setup
 The investigator chooses the starting levelg g
based on clinical judgment, & possibly animal or
in vitro data
 Treat patients in cohorts of 1, 2, or 3
 Escalate & de-escalate using reasonable rules & g
 If the lowest dose is too toxic, stop the trial, or
add lower dose levelsadd o e dose e e s
7Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
The 3+3 DesignThe 3+3 Design
 Example of an Up-and-Down Designp p g
 Algorithm based
– “If I see this then I do this”If I see this then I do this
 Up-and-down designs based on 1948 paper by
Mood and Dixon (applications dealt withMood and Dixon (applications dealt with
explosives and lethal toxicities!)
 Easy to understand Easy to understand
 Easy to implement
8Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach I)Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach I)
# Patients with DLT Decision
0/3 Escalate one level
1/3 Treat 3 more1/3 Treat 3 more
at the same level
2/3 or 3/3 Stop & choose previous levelp p
as the MTD
1/3 + {0/3} Escalate one level
1/3 + {1/3} Stop & choose previous level
as the MTD
9Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
1/3 + { 2/3 or 3/3 } Stop & choose previous level
as the MTD
Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach II)Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach II)
Step 1: Enroll 3Step 1: Enroll 3
patients at the kth
Dose
More than
3 patients
>1 toxicities1 toxicity
0 toxicities
Let k=k+1 and go to Step 1.
Step 1B: Enroll 3 more patients
at the kAth Dose.
3 patients
enrolled at
dose k-1?
No Yes
>2 toxicities for
all patients at
k dose
Declare the
previous dose
the MTD
Enroll 3 more
patients at
previous dose. Let
k = k-1Go to Step 1
0 toxicity for
current cohort
10Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
High Level Process for Implementing a 3+3
MethodMethod
Decision RuleData
Decision 
Framework for 
Toxicity Data
making dosing 
decisions
Toxicity Data
11Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Problems with the 3+3 DesignProblems with the 3+3 Design
 Ignores most of the data
St th t i l l ti l i kl Stops the trial relatively quickly
 Unreliable and increases the risk of choosing an
i ff ti dineffective dose
 Is not flexible in that it does not allow the
h t h th t t d t i it ilresearcher to change the targeted toxicity easily.
12Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Model Based AlternativesModel Based Alternatives
 Much more reliable than 3+3 algorithms
M d l b d th d iti t Model based methods are sensitive to
underlying assumptions about the dose-toxicity
relationshipp
 Minimally, requires expertise in the
implementation of model based methodsp e e tat o o ode based et ods
 May requires specialized software for trial
conduct (including web-based software)
13Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
co duct ( c ud g eb based so t a e)
Adaptive Dose findingAdaptive Dose-finding
 Write Down a Probability Model
D fi t f t ti ti i d l d Define a set of statistics using your model and a
set of decision rules to choose doses adaptively
At th d f th t d th d l t d l At the end of the study use the model to declare
an MTD
W it ft f d t f T i l d f Write software for conduct of Trial and perform a
simulation study to ensure the method can find
appropriate doses.
14Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
app op ate doses
Bayesian Models
(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding)
 All Bayesian inferences follow from Bayes’
Theorem:
posterior  prior • likelihood
 The posterior is a product of our prior e poste o s a p oduct o ou p o
knowledge (and subjective beliefs) and a
summary of the observed data
15Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Bayesian Models
(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding)
1) Specify statistical model to estimate the) p y
Toxicity probabilities
p1 < p2 < … < pkp1 p2 pk
corresponding to the k dose levels
2) S if t t T i it b bilit *2) Specify a target Toxicity probability, pTOX*
3) Prob(Toxicity | dose j) = pj , j=1,…,k,
*O’Quigley, Pepe, Fisher. (Biometrics, 1990)
16Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Bayesian Models
(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding)
4) Treat each successive cohort at the dose j* for) j
which pj* is closest to pTOX*.
5) The dose satisfying (4) at the end of the trial is
the selected to be the MTDthe selected to be the MTD
17Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Pros and Cons of the Two Model Based
ApproachesApproaches
3+3 Design Model Based Approaches
Pros:
1. Easy to Implement
Pros:
1. More reliable
2. Easy to understand
3. Stops the trial relatively
quickly
Cons:
1. Requires specializedquickly
Cons:
1 Ignores most of the data
1. Requires specialized
software for both trial setup
and conduct
2 May be sensitive to prior1. Ignores most of the data
2. Stops the trial relatively
quickly
2. May be sensitive to prior
assumptions
18Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Adaptive ModelsAdaptive Models
 Assume you decide to use an Adaptive Model
 Which model should you use? Keeping up with
ll th h i b bit i d b liall the choices can be a bit mind-boggling
 How should the model interface with the user?
19Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
High Level Process for Implementing a Model
Based Method: Statistician as InterfaceBased Method: Statistician as Interface
ModelData Statistician
Statistician as User 
Statistical 
Framework for 
Toxicity Data
Interface Model making dosing 
decisions
Toxicity Data
20Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
High Level Process for Implementing a Model
Based Method: Graphical InterfaceBased Method: Graphical Interface
Data Model User
Interface
Graphical User 
Statistical 
Framework for 
k d
Toxicity Data
Interface Modelmaking dosing 
decisions
Toxicity Data
21Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Pros and Cons of the Two Model Based
ApproachesApproaches
Statistician as Interface Graphical User Interface
Pros:
1. Relatively Easy to
Pros:
1. Easy to Scale up
Implement
Cons:
Cons:
1. Requires expertise in bothCons:
1. Difficult to Scale up (may
be difficult to use in a
multicenter setting)
1. Requires expertise in both
statistics (to build the model)
and computer programming
(to build the GUI and to havemulticenter setting)
2. Risk of data entry error
(to build the GUI and to have
the data communicate with
the model)
22Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
2. Risk of data entry error
Middle Ground: Toxicity Probability IntervalsMiddle Ground: Toxicity Probability Intervals
 Combines model based methods with simple
up-and-down rules similar to the 3+3 algorithmp g
 A simple spreadsheet can be used to monitor
Escalation Rules
23Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)
 A priori, assumes that pi follows a non-
informative beta(0.0005,0.0005) distribution( , )
A t i i th d l th t f ll A posteriori, the model assumes that pi follows a
beta(xi+.0005,ni-xi+0.0005) distribution
24Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI)Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI)
K1 and K2 are constants and i is the posterior1 2 i p
standard deviation of pi
Pe: Pr(0 < pi<K1i | data)
Ps: Pr( K1i <pi<K2i | data)
Pd: Pr( K2i <pi< 1 | data)
25Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Pstop: Pr(pi> | data)
Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)
 A priori, assumes that pi follows a uniform
beta(1,1) distribution( , )
A t i i th d l th t f ll A posteriori, the model assumes that pi follows a
beta(xi+1,ni-xi+1) distribution
26Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)
Pe: Pr(0 < pi<1 | data)/(1)
Ps: Pr( 1<pi<2 | data)/(2  1)
Pd: Pr( 2<pi< 1 |data)/(1   2)
Pstop: Pr(pi> | data)
27Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI):
Decision RulesDecision Rules
If Pstop>.9 then do not allow additional patients to enrollstop p
to the ith dose
If Pe is largest then escalate to the next dose
If Ps is largest then stay at the current dose
If Pd is largest then de-escalate
28Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI):
Decision RulesDecision Rules
Decision Rules lead to the exact same decisions as a
Decision-Theoretic framework in which the loss
functions are defined as:
29Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Toxicity Probability Intervals Limitations(?)Toxicity Probability Intervals Limitations(?)
 Toxicity rates are modeled independently
 Monotone dose-toxicity curve imposed at the
d f th t dend of the study
 Need to define 1 and 2
30Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
mTPI: Example CalculationsmTPI: Example Calculations
 What do you need to Implement the method:y p
 Software
 Define max sample size
 Define Pstop threshold
 Define (target toxicity)
31Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
 Define 1 and 2
mTPI: Example CalculationsmTPI: Example Calculations
32Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks
 mTPI is a middle ground between up-and-down
designs and model based designsg g
 mTPI is easy to implement
O ti ll t d t d Operationally easy to understand
 Is flexible
 Does not require software while trial is ongoing
 Has good operating characteristics
33Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
 Has good operating characteristics

More Related Content

PPTX
Bienvenue en 3e
PDF
Analytical Development of Biosimilar Mabs: From Vision to Reality
 
PPTX
A Brief Introduction to Epidemiology
PPTX
Analyzing the randomised control trial (rct)
PPTX
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF INDIAN GOODS & INDIAN PATENT SCENARIO
PPTX
Systematic Review & Meta Analysis.pptx
PDF
Considerations for Manufacturing Commercial Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) -...
PPT
Basic Concepts of Cleaning validation
Bienvenue en 3e
Analytical Development of Biosimilar Mabs: From Vision to Reality
 
A Brief Introduction to Epidemiology
Analyzing the randomised control trial (rct)
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF INDIAN GOODS & INDIAN PATENT SCENARIO
Systematic Review & Meta Analysis.pptx
Considerations for Manufacturing Commercial Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) -...
Basic Concepts of Cleaning validation

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Extractables and leachables regulatory perspectives
PPTX
VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Q2(R2)
PPTX
Bias and errors
PPTX
Dsur presentation1
PPT
Biostatistics in Clinical Research
PPT
(E pi !!)epidemiological investigation doc. doycheva
PPTX
Презентація вебінару "Вимоги MDR до технічного файлу. Вимоги до технічного фа...
PPTX
qualification of FTIR and DSC
PPTX
Auditing in QA and Engineering department.pptx
PPT
Clinical Trial Phase 3 And 4
PPT
Medical statistics Basic concept and applications [Square one]
PPTX
Periodic Safety Update Reports: Some commonly asked questions
PDF
Clinical Evaluation in the EU for Medical Devices: Understanding the Changes ...
PDF
CER - PMS - PMCF
PPTX
Processs validation
PPT
05 intervention studies
PPT
Bias and validity
PPTX
Randomized clinical trials
PPT
Dcgi adverse event
Extractables and leachables regulatory perspectives
VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Q2(R2)
Bias and errors
Dsur presentation1
Biostatistics in Clinical Research
(E pi !!)epidemiological investigation doc. doycheva
Презентація вебінару "Вимоги MDR до технічного файлу. Вимоги до технічного фа...
qualification of FTIR and DSC
Auditing in QA and Engineering department.pptx
Clinical Trial Phase 3 And 4
Medical statistics Basic concept and applications [Square one]
Periodic Safety Update Reports: Some commonly asked questions
Clinical Evaluation in the EU for Medical Devices: Understanding the Changes ...
CER - PMS - PMCF
Processs validation
05 intervention studies
Bias and validity
Randomized clinical trials
Dcgi adverse event
Ad

Similar to MPTI Talk (20)

PPTX
Early Phase Oncology Trials: A Study in Adaptation
PPTX
The Blueprint for Success for Effective and Efficient Clinical Protocols.pptx
PDF
Phase I trials - Educational course at the PAMM-2019 winter meeting
PDF
Beyond Traditional Designs in Early Drug Development
PDF
A Bayesian Industry Approach to Phase 1 Combination Trials in Oncology
PDF
2014-10-22 EUGM | ROYCHAUDHURI | Phase I Combination Trials
PPTX
2020 trends in biostatistics what you should know about study design - slid...
PPTX
Chapter 34 medical stat
PPTX
Bayesian Methods in Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs
PPTX
Sample size for phase ii clinical trials-Simons design and mcp mod case studies
PPTX
Shing Lee MedicReS World Congress 2015
PPTX
Clinical trials and evidence
PDF
A New Statistical Aspects of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
PDF
2019 PMED Spring Course - SMARTs-Part I - Eric Laber, April 3, 2019
PDF
Adaptive Clinical Trials: Role of Modelling and Simulation
 
PPT
Adaptive Design
PPTX
Review of key concepts in clinical trial methodology
PPTX
Cadth 2015 e4 mcelwee cadth 041415 fnl
PDF
Looking Inside Mechanistic Models of Carcinogenesis
PDF
Report
Early Phase Oncology Trials: A Study in Adaptation
The Blueprint for Success for Effective and Efficient Clinical Protocols.pptx
Phase I trials - Educational course at the PAMM-2019 winter meeting
Beyond Traditional Designs in Early Drug Development
A Bayesian Industry Approach to Phase 1 Combination Trials in Oncology
2014-10-22 EUGM | ROYCHAUDHURI | Phase I Combination Trials
2020 trends in biostatistics what you should know about study design - slid...
Chapter 34 medical stat
Bayesian Methods in Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs
Sample size for phase ii clinical trials-Simons design and mcp mod case studies
Shing Lee MedicReS World Congress 2015
Clinical trials and evidence
A New Statistical Aspects of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
2019 PMED Spring Course - SMARTs-Part I - Eric Laber, April 3, 2019
Adaptive Clinical Trials: Role of Modelling and Simulation
 
Adaptive Design
Review of key concepts in clinical trial methodology
Cadth 2015 e4 mcelwee cadth 041415 fnl
Looking Inside Mechanistic Models of Carcinogenesis
Report
Ad

More from Cytel USA (20)

PDF
From the clinic to the cfo adaptive trials and financial decision making
PDF
Eugm 2012 unknown - incivex drug development process overview road to findi...
PDF
Eugm 2012 pritchett - application of adaptive sample size re-estimation in ...
PDF
Eugm 2012 oneill - perspective on the current environment for adaptive clin...
PDF
Eugm 2012 mehta - future plans for east - 2012 eugm
PDF
Eugm 2012 jemiai - introduction to east architect
PDF
Eugm 2012 gaydos - design and analysis approaches to evaluate cardiovascula...
PDF
Eugm 2012 demets - clinical trials and the impact of regulations
PDF
Eugm 2011 pocock - dm cs-and-adaptive-trials
PDF
Eugm 2011 mehta - execution of adaptive trials operational considerations
PDF
Eugm 2011 mehta - adaptive designs for phase 3 oncology trials
PDF
EUGM 2011 | JEMIAI
PDF
EUGM 2011 | JEHL | group sequential designs with 2 time to event endpoints
PDF
EUGM 2011| Fretault | Use of bayesian approach in phase ii
PDF
EUGM 2011 | DAY | Experiences with interim analyses and dm cs
PDF
EUGM 2011 | DARCHY | Deployment & use of east within sanofi r & d
PDF
EUGM 2014 | BEKELE | Adaptive Dose Finding Using Toxicity Probability Intervals
PDF
EUGM 2014 | BOLOGNESE | Case Studies of Phase 2 Adaptive Dose-Finding Trials
PDF
2012-05-30 EUGM | GAYDOS | Design & Analysis Approaches to Evaluate Cardiovas...
PDF
2014-10-22 EUGM | WEI | Moving Beyond the Comfort Zone in Practicing Translat...
From the clinic to the cfo adaptive trials and financial decision making
Eugm 2012 unknown - incivex drug development process overview road to findi...
Eugm 2012 pritchett - application of adaptive sample size re-estimation in ...
Eugm 2012 oneill - perspective on the current environment for adaptive clin...
Eugm 2012 mehta - future plans for east - 2012 eugm
Eugm 2012 jemiai - introduction to east architect
Eugm 2012 gaydos - design and analysis approaches to evaluate cardiovascula...
Eugm 2012 demets - clinical trials and the impact of regulations
Eugm 2011 pocock - dm cs-and-adaptive-trials
Eugm 2011 mehta - execution of adaptive trials operational considerations
Eugm 2011 mehta - adaptive designs for phase 3 oncology trials
EUGM 2011 | JEMIAI
EUGM 2011 | JEHL | group sequential designs with 2 time to event endpoints
EUGM 2011| Fretault | Use of bayesian approach in phase ii
EUGM 2011 | DAY | Experiences with interim analyses and dm cs
EUGM 2011 | DARCHY | Deployment & use of east within sanofi r & d
EUGM 2014 | BEKELE | Adaptive Dose Finding Using Toxicity Probability Intervals
EUGM 2014 | BOLOGNESE | Case Studies of Phase 2 Adaptive Dose-Finding Trials
2012-05-30 EUGM | GAYDOS | Design & Analysis Approaches to Evaluate Cardiovas...
2014-10-22 EUGM | WEI | Moving Beyond the Comfort Zone in Practicing Translat...

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
PDF
Therapeutic Potential of Citrus Flavonoids in Metabolic Inflammation and Ins...
PPT
1b - INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY (comm med).ppt
PPTX
JUVENILE NASOPHARYNGEAL ANGIOFIBROMA.pptx
PDF
Medical Evidence in the Criminal Justice Delivery System in.pdf
PPTX
DENTAL CARIES FOR DENTISTRY STUDENT.pptx
PPT
genitourinary-cancers_1.ppt Nursing care of clients with GU cancer
PPTX
1 General Principles of Radiotherapy.pptx
PPT
Copy-Histopathology Practical by CMDA ESUTH CHAPTER(0) - Copy.ppt
PPTX
Neuropathic pain.ppt treatment managment
PPTX
Pathophysiology And Clinical Features Of Peripheral Nervous System .pptx
PPT
Obstructive sleep apnea in orthodontics treatment
PDF
Human Health And Disease hggyutgghg .pdf
PPTX
Electromyography (EMG) in Physiotherapy: Principles, Procedure & Clinical App...
PPTX
Gastroschisis- Clinical Overview 18112311
PPTX
Respiratory drugs, drugs acting on the respi system
PPTX
Fundamentals of human energy transfer .pptx
PPTX
Important Obstetric Emergency that must be recognised
PPTX
Uterus anatomy embryology, and clinical aspects
PPT
Management of Acute Kidney Injury at LAUTECH
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
Therapeutic Potential of Citrus Flavonoids in Metabolic Inflammation and Ins...
1b - INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY (comm med).ppt
JUVENILE NASOPHARYNGEAL ANGIOFIBROMA.pptx
Medical Evidence in the Criminal Justice Delivery System in.pdf
DENTAL CARIES FOR DENTISTRY STUDENT.pptx
genitourinary-cancers_1.ppt Nursing care of clients with GU cancer
1 General Principles of Radiotherapy.pptx
Copy-Histopathology Practical by CMDA ESUTH CHAPTER(0) - Copy.ppt
Neuropathic pain.ppt treatment managment
Pathophysiology And Clinical Features Of Peripheral Nervous System .pptx
Obstructive sleep apnea in orthodontics treatment
Human Health And Disease hggyutgghg .pdf
Electromyography (EMG) in Physiotherapy: Principles, Procedure & Clinical App...
Gastroschisis- Clinical Overview 18112311
Respiratory drugs, drugs acting on the respi system
Fundamentals of human energy transfer .pptx
Important Obstetric Emergency that must be recognised
Uterus anatomy embryology, and clinical aspects
Management of Acute Kidney Injury at LAUTECH

MPTI Talk

  • 1. Adaptive Dose Finding Using Toxicity Probability IntervalsProbability Intervals Neby Bekele, PhDy , Senior Director Gil d S iGilead Sciences 1Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 2. Outline of TalkOutline of Talk  Phase I Clinical Trials in Oncologygy  Overview of common methods – 3+3 Design3 3 Design – Model Based Alternatives  Overview of the TPI method Overview of the TPI method  Implementation and Software Demonstration  Concluding Remarks 2Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 3. Phase I Clinical Trials in OncologyPhase I Clinical Trials in Oncology  Given a set of doses of a new agent find a dose with an “acceptable” level of toxicityy  Underlying Assumptions: – We explicitly assume that the probability of toxicityWe explicitly assume that the probability of toxicity increases with dose – While implicitly assuming that the probability of response increases with dose 3Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 4. Phase I Clinical Trials in OncologyPhase I Clinical Trials in Oncology  Implications of underlying assumptions: A higher dose is worse because it is more likely toA higher dose is worse, because it is more likely to cause toxicity while also being better because it is more likely to have an anti-tumor effecty Goal: Finding the dose that balances benefit relative to risk (i.e., the MTD)( ) 4Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 5. Practical Considerations for Phase I Oncology Clinical TrialsClinical Trials  For ethical reasons doses must be selected For ethical reasons, doses must be selected sequentially, for small cohorts of patients  It may be the case that no dose is safe It may be the case that no dose is safe  The maximum sample size is usually very small  Patient heterogeneity is usually ignored  Little is known about the dose-toxicity curvey  Evaluating toxicity usually takes weeks  Whil t i iti f i t d 5Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.  While toxicities are of various types and severities, this is usually ignored
  • 6. Practical Considerations for Phase I Oncology Clinical TrialsClinical Trials  For ethical reasons doses must be selected For ethical reasons, doses must be selected sequentially, for small cohorts of patients  Phase I is often ethical only for patients with Phase I is often ethical only for patients with little or no therapeutic alternative – Patients typically are pre-treated, with advanced ora e s yp ca y a e p e ea ed, ad a ced o resistant disease, little chance of response – Dose-finding typically is done in terms of toxicity only to find a “maximum tolerated dose”only, to find a maximum tolerated dose 6Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 7. Typical Phase I Oncology Clinical Trial SetupTypical Phase I Oncology Clinical Trial Setup  The investigator chooses the starting levelg g based on clinical judgment, & possibly animal or in vitro data  Treat patients in cohorts of 1, 2, or 3  Escalate & de-escalate using reasonable rules & g  If the lowest dose is too toxic, stop the trial, or add lower dose levelsadd o e dose e e s 7Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 8. The 3+3 DesignThe 3+3 Design  Example of an Up-and-Down Designp p g  Algorithm based – “If I see this then I do this”If I see this then I do this  Up-and-down designs based on 1948 paper by Mood and Dixon (applications dealt withMood and Dixon (applications dealt with explosives and lethal toxicities!)  Easy to understand Easy to understand  Easy to implement 8Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 9. Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach I)Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach I) # Patients with DLT Decision 0/3 Escalate one level 1/3 Treat 3 more1/3 Treat 3 more at the same level 2/3 or 3/3 Stop & choose previous levelp p as the MTD 1/3 + {0/3} Escalate one level 1/3 + {1/3} Stop & choose previous level as the MTD 9Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014. 1/3 + { 2/3 or 3/3 } Stop & choose previous level as the MTD
  • 10. Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach II)Example 3+3 Decision Rules (Approach II) Step 1: Enroll 3Step 1: Enroll 3 patients at the kth Dose More than 3 patients >1 toxicities1 toxicity 0 toxicities Let k=k+1 and go to Step 1. Step 1B: Enroll 3 more patients at the kAth Dose. 3 patients enrolled at dose k-1? No Yes >2 toxicities for all patients at k dose Declare the previous dose the MTD Enroll 3 more patients at previous dose. Let k = k-1Go to Step 1 0 toxicity for current cohort 10Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 11. High Level Process for Implementing a 3+3 MethodMethod Decision RuleData Decision  Framework for  Toxicity Data making dosing  decisions Toxicity Data 11Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 12. Problems with the 3+3 DesignProblems with the 3+3 Design  Ignores most of the data St th t i l l ti l i kl Stops the trial relatively quickly  Unreliable and increases the risk of choosing an i ff ti dineffective dose  Is not flexible in that it does not allow the h t h th t t d t i it ilresearcher to change the targeted toxicity easily. 12Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 13. Model Based AlternativesModel Based Alternatives  Much more reliable than 3+3 algorithms M d l b d th d iti t Model based methods are sensitive to underlying assumptions about the dose-toxicity relationshipp  Minimally, requires expertise in the implementation of model based methodsp e e tat o o ode based et ods  May requires specialized software for trial conduct (including web-based software) 13Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014. co duct ( c ud g eb based so t a e)
  • 14. Adaptive Dose findingAdaptive Dose-finding  Write Down a Probability Model D fi t f t ti ti i d l d Define a set of statistics using your model and a set of decision rules to choose doses adaptively At th d f th t d th d l t d l At the end of the study use the model to declare an MTD W it ft f d t f T i l d f Write software for conduct of Trial and perform a simulation study to ensure the method can find appropriate doses. 14Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014. app op ate doses
  • 15. Bayesian Models (Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding)  All Bayesian inferences follow from Bayes’ Theorem: posterior  prior • likelihood  The posterior is a product of our prior e poste o s a p oduct o ou p o knowledge (and subjective beliefs) and a summary of the observed data 15Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 16. Bayesian Models (Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding) 1) Specify statistical model to estimate the) p y Toxicity probabilities p1 < p2 < … < pkp1 p2 pk corresponding to the k dose levels 2) S if t t T i it b bilit *2) Specify a target Toxicity probability, pTOX* 3) Prob(Toxicity | dose j) = pj , j=1,…,k, *O’Quigley, Pepe, Fisher. (Biometrics, 1990) 16Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 17. Bayesian Models (Commonly Used in Phase I Dose Finding)(Commonly Used in Phase I Dose-Finding) 4) Treat each successive cohort at the dose j* for) j which pj* is closest to pTOX*. 5) The dose satisfying (4) at the end of the trial is the selected to be the MTDthe selected to be the MTD 17Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 18. Pros and Cons of the Two Model Based ApproachesApproaches 3+3 Design Model Based Approaches Pros: 1. Easy to Implement Pros: 1. More reliable 2. Easy to understand 3. Stops the trial relatively quickly Cons: 1. Requires specializedquickly Cons: 1 Ignores most of the data 1. Requires specialized software for both trial setup and conduct 2 May be sensitive to prior1. Ignores most of the data 2. Stops the trial relatively quickly 2. May be sensitive to prior assumptions 18Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 19. Adaptive ModelsAdaptive Models  Assume you decide to use an Adaptive Model  Which model should you use? Keeping up with ll th h i b bit i d b liall the choices can be a bit mind-boggling  How should the model interface with the user? 19Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 20. High Level Process for Implementing a Model Based Method: Statistician as InterfaceBased Method: Statistician as Interface ModelData Statistician Statistician as User  Statistical  Framework for  Toxicity Data Interface Model making dosing  decisions Toxicity Data 20Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 21. High Level Process for Implementing a Model Based Method: Graphical InterfaceBased Method: Graphical Interface Data Model User Interface Graphical User  Statistical  Framework for  k d Toxicity Data Interface Modelmaking dosing  decisions Toxicity Data 21Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 22. Pros and Cons of the Two Model Based ApproachesApproaches Statistician as Interface Graphical User Interface Pros: 1. Relatively Easy to Pros: 1. Easy to Scale up Implement Cons: Cons: 1. Requires expertise in bothCons: 1. Difficult to Scale up (may be difficult to use in a multicenter setting) 1. Requires expertise in both statistics (to build the model) and computer programming (to build the GUI and to havemulticenter setting) 2. Risk of data entry error (to build the GUI and to have the data communicate with the model) 22Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014. 2. Risk of data entry error
  • 23. Middle Ground: Toxicity Probability IntervalsMiddle Ground: Toxicity Probability Intervals  Combines model based methods with simple up-and-down rules similar to the 3+3 algorithmp g  A simple spreadsheet can be used to monitor Escalation Rules 23Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 24. Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)  A priori, assumes that pi follows a non- informative beta(0.0005,0.0005) distribution( , ) A t i i th d l th t f ll A posteriori, the model assumes that pi follows a beta(xi+.0005,ni-xi+0.0005) distribution 24Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 25. Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI)Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI) K1 and K2 are constants and i is the posterior1 2 i p standard deviation of pi Pe: Pr(0 < pi<K1i | data) Ps: Pr( K1i <pi<K2i | data) Pd: Pr( K2i <pi< 1 | data) 25Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014. Pstop: Pr(pi> | data)
  • 26. Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)  A priori, assumes that pi follows a uniform beta(1,1) distribution( , ) A t i i th d l th t f ll A posteriori, the model assumes that pi follows a beta(xi+1,ni-xi+1) distribution 26Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 27. Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI)Modified Toxicity Probability Intervals (mTPI) Pe: Pr(0 < pi<1 | data)/(1) Ps: Pr( 1<pi<2 | data)/(2  1) Pd: Pr( 2<pi< 1 |data)/(1   2) Pstop: Pr(pi> | data) 27Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 28. Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI): Decision RulesDecision Rules If Pstop>.9 then do not allow additional patients to enrollstop p to the ith dose If Pe is largest then escalate to the next dose If Ps is largest then stay at the current dose If Pd is largest then de-escalate 28Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 29. Toxicity Probability Intervals (TPI): Decision RulesDecision Rules Decision Rules lead to the exact same decisions as a Decision-Theoretic framework in which the loss functions are defined as: 29Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 30. Toxicity Probability Intervals Limitations(?)Toxicity Probability Intervals Limitations(?)  Toxicity rates are modeled independently  Monotone dose-toxicity curve imposed at the d f th t dend of the study  Need to define 1 and 2 30Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 31. mTPI: Example CalculationsmTPI: Example Calculations  What do you need to Implement the method:y p  Software  Define max sample size  Define Pstop threshold  Define (target toxicity) 31Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.  Define 1 and 2
  • 32. mTPI: Example CalculationsmTPI: Example Calculations 32Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.
  • 33. Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks  mTPI is a middle ground between up-and-down designs and model based designsg g  mTPI is easy to implement O ti ll t d t d Operationally easy to understand  Is flexible  Does not require software while trial is ongoing  Has good operating characteristics 33Phase I & TPI. Oct, 2014.  Has good operating characteristics