Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Stat Med. 2011 Jul 30;30(17):2070-80. doi: 10.1002/sim.4069. Epub 2011 Feb 23.
Currently many dose-finding clinical trial designs, including the continual reassessment method (CRM) and the standard ' 3 + 3' design, dichotomize toxicity outcomes based on the pre-specified dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) criteria. This loss of information is particularly inefficient due to the small sample sizes in phase I trials. Common Toxicity Criteria (CTCAEv3.0) classify adverse events into grades 1-5, which range from 1 as a mild adverse event to 5 as death related to an adverse event. In this paper, we extend the CRM to include ordinal toxicity outcomes as specified by CTCAEv3.0 using the proportional odds model (POM) and compare results with the dichotomous CRM. A sensitivity analysis of the new design compares various target DLT rates, sample sizes, and cohort sizes. This design is also assessed under various dose-toxicity relationship models including POMs as well as those that violate the proportional odds assumption. A simulation study shows that the proportional odds CRM performs as well as the dichotomous CRM on all criteria compared (including safety criteria such as percentage of patients treated at highly toxic or suboptimal dose levels) and with improved estimation of the maximum tolerated dose when the PO assumption is not violated. These findings suggest that it is beneficial to incorporate ordinal toxicity endpoints into phase I trial designs.
目前,许多剂量探索临床试验设计,包括连续再评估方法(CRM)和标准的“3+3”设计,都是根据预先指定的剂量限制毒性(DLT)标准将毒性结果二值化。由于 I 期试验的样本量较小,这种信息丢失特别低效。常见毒性标准(CTCAEv3.0)将不良事件分为 1-5 级,从 1 级表示轻度不良事件到 5 级表示与不良事件相关的死亡。在本文中,我们使用比例优势模型(POM)将 CRM 扩展为包括 CTCAEv3.0 规定的有序毒性结果,并将结果与二值化 CRM 进行比较。新设计的敏感性分析比较了各种目标 DLT 率、样本量和队列大小。该设计还在各种剂量-毒性关系模型下进行评估,包括 POM 以及违反比例优势假设的模型。一项模拟研究表明,在所有比较的标准(包括安全性标准,如接受高毒性或次优剂量水平治疗的患者百分比)上,比例优势 CRM 与二值化 CRM 表现相当,并且在未违反 PO 假设时,对最大耐受剂量的估计有所改善。这些发现表明,将有序毒性终点纳入 I 期临床试验设计是有益的。