Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Software

A web tool for designing and conducting phase I trials using the continual reassessment method

Authors: Nolan A. Wages, Gina R. Petroni

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Broad implementation of model-based dose-finding methods, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM), has been limited, with traditional or modified 3 + 3 designs remaining in frequent use. Part of the reason is the lack of reliable, easy-to-use, and robust software tools for designing and implementing more efficient designs.

Results

With the aim of augmenting broader implementation of model-guided methods, we have developed a web application for the Bayesian CRM in the R programming language using the Shiny package. The application has two components, simulation and implementation. Within the application, one has the ability to generate simulated operating characteristics for the study design phase, and to sequentially provide the next dose recommendation for each new accrual or cohort based on the current data for the study implementation phase. At the conclusion of the study, it can be used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The web tool requires no programming knowledge, and it is free to access on any device with an internet browser.

Conclusions

The application provides the type of simulation information that aid clinicians and reviewers in understanding operating characteristics for the accuracy and safety of the CRM, which we hope will augment phase I trial design. We believe that the development of this software will facilitate more efficient collaborations within study teams conducting single-agent dose-finding trials.
Literature
1.
go back to reference O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher J. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46:33–48.CrossRefPubMed O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher J. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46:33–48.CrossRefPubMed
2.
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;30:303–15.CrossRef Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1999;30:303–15.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, et al. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials. 2008;5:465–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, et al. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials. 2008;5:465–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3+3 design for phase I trials. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1808–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3+3 design for phase I trials. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1808–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Nie L, Rubin EH, Mehrotra N, et al. Rendering the 3+3 design to rest: more efficient approaches to oncology dose-finding trials in the era of targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2623–9.CrossRefPubMed Nie L, Rubin EH, Mehrotra N, et al. Rendering the 3+3 design to rest: more efficient approaches to oncology dose-finding trials in the era of targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2623–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Cheung YK. Dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2011.CrossRef Cheung YK. Dose-finding by the continual reassessment method. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2011.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2009;28:3012–28.CrossRefPubMed Paoletti X, Kramar A. A comparison of model choices for the continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2009;28:3012–28.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Iasonos A, Wages NA, Conaway MR, Cheung YK, Yuan Y, O'Quigley J. Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies. Stat Med. 2016;35:3760–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Iasonos A, Wages NA, Conaway MR, Cheung YK, Yuan Y, O'Quigley J. Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies. Stat Med. 2016;35:3760–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference O'Quigley J, Zohar S. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20:1013–25.CrossRefPubMed O'Quigley J, Zohar S. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method. J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20:1013–25.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Pan H, Yuan Y. A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2017;36:215–24.CrossRef Pan H, Yuan Y. A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials. Stat Med. 2017;36:215–24.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference O’Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996;52:673–84.CrossRefPubMed O’Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996;52:673–84.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Natarajan L, O’Quigley J. Interval estimates of the probability of toxicity at the maximum tolerated dose for small samples. Stat Med. 2003;22:1829–36.CrossRefPubMed Natarajan L, O’Quigley J. Interval estimates of the probability of toxicity at the maximum tolerated dose for small samples. Stat Med. 2003;22:1829–36.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Iasonos A, Gönen M, Bosl GJ. Scientific review of phase I protocols with novel dose escalation designs: how much information is needed. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2221–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Iasonos A, Gönen M, Bosl GJ. Scientific review of phase I protocols with novel dose escalation designs: how much information is needed. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2221–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Petroni GR, Wages NA, Paux G, Dubois F. Implementation of adaptive methods in early-phase clinical trials. Stat Med. 2017;36:215–24.CrossRefPubMed Petroni GR, Wages NA, Paux G, Dubois F. Implementation of adaptive methods in early-phase clinical trials. Stat Med. 2017;36:215–24.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Wages NA, Varhegyi N. A web application for evaluating phase I methods using a non-parametric optimal benchmark. Clinical Trials. 2017;14:553-57. Wages NA, Varhegyi N. A web application for evaluating phase I methods using a non-parametric optimal benchmark. Clinical Trials. 2017;14:553-57.
Metadata
Title
A web tool for designing and conducting phase I trials using the continual reassessment method
Authors
Nolan A. Wages
Gina R. Petroni
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4038-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine