Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Software

GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials

Authors: D. Dinart, J. Fraisse, D. Tosi, A. Mauguen, C. Touraine, S. Gourgou, M. C. Le Deley, C. Bellera, C. Mollevi

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The main objective of phase I cancer clinical trials is to identify the maximum tolerated dose, usually defined as the highest dose associated with an acceptable level of severe toxicity during the first cycle of treatment. Several dose-escalation designs based on mathematical modeling of the dose-toxicity relationship have been developed. The main ones are: the continual reassessment method (CRM), the escalation with overdose control (EWOC) method and, for late-onset and cumulative toxicities, the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) and the time-to-event escalation with overdose control (TITE-EWOC) methods. The objective of this work was to perform a user-friendly R package that combines the latter model-guided adaptive designs.

Results

GUIP1 is an R Graphical User Interface for dose escalation strategies in Phase 1 cancer clinical trials. It implements the CRM (based on Bayesian or maximum likelihood estimation), EWOC and TITE-CRM methods using the dfcrm and bcrm R packages, while the TITE-EWOC method has been specifically developed. The program is built using the TCL/TK programming language, which can be compiled via R software libraries (tcltk, tkrplot, tcltk2). GUIP1 offers the possibility of simulating and/or conducting and managing phase I clinical trials in real-time using file management options with automatic backup of study and/or simulation results.

Conclusions

GUIP1 is implemented using the software R, which is widely used by statisticians in oncology. This package simplifies the use of the main model-based dose escalation methods and is designed to be fairly simple for beginners in R. Furthermore, it offers multiple possibilities such as a full traceability of the study. By including multiple innovative adaptive methods in a free and user-friendly program, we hope that GUIP1 will promote and facilitate their use in designing future phase I cancer clinical trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989;45(3):925–37.CrossRef Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989;45(3):925–37.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Le Tourneau C, Gan HK, Razak ARA, Paoletti X. Efficiency of New Dose Escalation Designs in Dose-Finding Phase I Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51039 Stemmer SM, editor.CrossRef Le Tourneau C, Gan HK, Razak ARA, Paoletti X. Efficiency of New Dose Escalation Designs in Dose-Finding Phase I Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51039 Stemmer SM, editor.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Reiner E, Paoletti X, O’Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1999;30(3):303–15.CrossRef Reiner E, Paoletti X, O’Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1999;30(3):303–15.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(31):4982–6.CrossRef Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A. Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(31):4982–6.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46(1):33–48.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46(1):33–48.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996;52(2):673–84.CrossRef O’Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996;52(2):673–84.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000;56(4):1177–82.CrossRef Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000;56(4):1177–82.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17(10):1103–20.CrossRef Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17(10):1103–20.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 2009;104(487):954–68.CrossRef Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 2009;104(487):954–68.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Liu S, Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. Ann Appl Stat. 2013;7(4):1837–2457.CrossRef Liu S, Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. Ann Appl Stat. 2013;7(4):1837–2457.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat Med. 2011;30(17):2070–80.CrossRef Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Stat Med. 2011;30(17):2070–80.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials. 2012;9(3):303–13.CrossRef Van Meter EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Bandyopadhyay D. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials. 2012;9(3):303–13.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Braun TM. The bivariate continual reassessment method. Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(3):240–56.CrossRef Braun TM. The bivariate continual reassessment method. Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(3):240–56.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Yan F, Mandrekar SJ, Yuan Y. Keyboard: a novel Bayesian toxicity probability interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):3994–4003.CrossRef Yan F, Mandrekar SJ, Yuan Y. Keyboard: a novel Bayesian toxicity probability interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):3994–4003.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zhou H, Murray TA, Pan H, Yuan Y. Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2018;37(14):2208–22.CrossRef Zhou H, Murray TA, Pan H, Yuan Y. Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2018;37(14):2208–22.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Yuan Y, Lee JJ, Hilsenbeck SG. Model-assisted designs for early-phase clinical trials: simplicity meets superiority. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1–12. Yuan Y, Lee JJ, Hilsenbeck SG. Model-assisted designs for early-phase clinical trials: simplicity meets superiority. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1–12.
17.
go back to reference Ji Y, Liu P, Li Y, Bekele BN. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7(6):653–63.CrossRef Ji Y, Liu P, Li Y, Bekele BN. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7(6):653–63.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Yuan Y, Hess KR, Hilsenbeck SG, Gilbert MR. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(17):4291–301.CrossRef Yuan Y, Hess KR, Hilsenbeck SG, Gilbert MR. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(17):4291–301.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kramar A, Houédé N, Paoletti X. np1: a computer program for dose escalation strategies in phase I clinical trials. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2007;88(1):8–17.CrossRef Kramar A, Houédé N, Paoletti X. np1: a computer program for dose escalation strategies in phase I clinical trials. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2007;88(1):8–17.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mauguen A, Le Deley MC, Zohar S. Dose-finding approach for dose escalation with overdose control considering incomplete observations. Stat Med. 2011;30(13):1584–94.CrossRef Mauguen A, Le Deley MC, Zohar S. Dose-finding approach for dose escalation with overdose control considering incomplete observations. Stat Med. 2011;30(13):1584–94.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Stat Med. 2009;28(24):3012–28.CrossRef Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I cancer trials. Stat Med. 2009;28(24):3012–28.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Lee SM. Ying Kuen Cheung null. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials. 2009;6(3):227–38.CrossRef Lee SM. Ying Kuen Cheung null. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials. 2009;6(3):227–38.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference O’Quigley J. Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics. 2002;3(1):87–99.CrossRef O’Quigley J. Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics. 2002;3(1):87–99.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials
Authors
D. Dinart
J. Fraisse
D. Tosi
A. Mauguen
C. Touraine
S. Gourgou
M. C. Le Deley
C. Bellera
C. Mollevi
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01149-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue