Paoletti Xavier, Baron Benoît, Schöffski Patrick, Fumoleau Pierre, Lacombe Denis, Marreaud Sandrine, Sylvester Richard
Inserm, U738, F-75018 Paris, France.
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Jul;42(10):1362-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.051. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
Many clinicians often do not feel comfortable with the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). This article reviews its implementation, showing the characteristics, advantages and limitations of this method in Phase I studies as an alternative to the classical 'Fibonacci' escalation schema. A two center, dose escalation phase I study of rViscumin was carried out. Thirty-seven patients were included at 14 different dose-levels (10 to 6400 ng/kg). The complete clinical results are presented elsewhere. A 2-step CRM design enables one to speed-up the study and most importantly to obtain an accurate estimate of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Different management issues related to a multicenter study are illustrated and we show how the method can go wrong when severe toxicity, or dose limiting toxicity (DLT), is not considered by the clinician as being sufficient to limit dose escalation (here a grade 3 asthenia related to the drug). This would have affected any dose finding methods. We believe that CRM is a good alternative to the standard method from both a statistical and a practical point of view but further methodological research is necessary to address the issues related to the composite nature of the endpoint.
许多临床医生对连续重新评估法(CRM)常常感到不自在。本文回顾了其实施情况,展示了该方法在I期研究中作为经典“斐波那契”递增方案替代方法的特点、优势和局限性。开展了一项关于重组天花粉蛋白(rViscumin)的两中心剂量递增I期研究。14个不同剂量水平(10至6400 ng/kg)纳入了37例患者。完整的临床结果在其他地方呈现。两步CRM设计能够加快研究速度,最重要的是能够准确估计最大耐受剂量(MTD)。阐述了与多中心研究相关的不同管理问题,并且我们展示了在临床医生未将严重毒性或剂量限制毒性(DLT)视为足以限制剂量递增(此处为与药物相关的3级乏力)时该方法可能出现的错误情况。这会影响任何剂量确定方法。我们认为,从统计学和实际角度来看,CRM都是标准方法的良好替代方法,但需要进一步开展方法学研究以解决与终点复合性质相关的问题。