Suppr超能文献

评估肿瘤 1 期临床试验剂量递增阶段的各种连续再评估方法模型:使用真实临床数据和模拟研究。

Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.

机构信息

Medical Statistics Consultancy Ltd, London, W4 5XF, UK.

Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.

出版信息

BMC Cancer. 2021 Jan 5;21(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07703-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The continual reassessment method (CRM) identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more efficiently and identifies the true MTD more frequently compared to standard methods such as the 3 + 3 method. An initial estimate of the dose-toxicity relationship (prior skeleton) is required, and there is limited guidance on how to select this. Previously, we compared the CRM with six different skeletons to the 3 + 3 method by conducting post-hoc analysis on a phase 1 oncology study (AZD3514), each CRM model reduced the number of patients allocated to suboptimal and toxic doses. This manuscript extends this work by assessing the ability of the 3 + 3 method and the CRM with different skeletons in determining the true MTD of various "true" dose-toxicity relationships.

METHODS

One thousand studies were simulated for each "true" dose toxicity relationship considered, four were based on clinical trial data (AZD3514, AZD1208, AZD1480, AZD4877), and four were theoretical. The 3 + 3 method and 2-stage extended CRM with six skeletons were applied to identify the MTD, where the true MTD was considered as the largest dose where the probability of experiencing a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is ≤33%.

RESULTS

For every true dose-toxicity relationship, the CRM selected the MTD that matched the true MTD in a higher proportion of studies compared to the 3 + 3 method. The CRM overestimated the MTD in a higher proportion of simulations compared to the 3 + 3 method. The proportion of studies where the correct MTD was selected varied considerably between skeletons. For some true dose-toxicity relationships, some skeletons identified the true MTD in a higher proportion of scenarios compared to the skeleton that matched the true dose-toxicity relationship.

CONCLUSION

Through simulation, the CRM generally outperformed the 3 + 3 method for the clinical and theoretical true dose-toxicity relationships. It was observed that accurate estimates of the true skeleton do not always outperform a generic skeleton, therefore the application of wide confidence intervals may enable a generic skeleton to be used. Further work is needed to determine the optimum skeleton.

摘要

背景

与标准方法(如 3+3 法)相比,持续重新评估方法(CRM)更有效地确定最大耐受剂量(MTD),并且更频繁地确定真实 MTD。需要对剂量-毒性关系进行初始估计(先验骨架),但对于如何选择先验骨架,指南有限。之前,我们通过对一项肿瘤学 I 期临床试验(AZD3514)进行事后分析,比较了 CRM 与 6 种不同骨架和 3+3 法,结果发现每个 CRM 模型都减少了分配到非最佳和毒性剂量的患者数量。本文通过评估 3+3 法和不同骨架的 CRM 在确定各种“真实”剂量-毒性关系的真实 MTD 方面的能力,扩展了这项工作。

方法

为每种考虑的“真实”剂量毒性关系模拟了 1000 项研究,其中 4 项基于临床试验数据(AZD3514、AZD1208、AZD1480、AZD4877),4 项为理论研究。应用 3+3 法和 2 期扩展 CRM 及 6 种骨架来确定 MTD,其中真实 MTD 被认为是最大剂量,在此剂量下,发生剂量限制毒性(DLT)的概率≤33%。

结果

对于每种真实的剂量-毒性关系,与 3+3 法相比,CRM 选择与真实 MTD 匹配的 MTD 的研究比例更高。与 3+3 法相比,CRM 高估 MTD 的比例更高。选择正确 MTD 的研究比例在骨架之间差异很大。对于某些真实的剂量-毒性关系,一些骨架在更多的情况下比与真实剂量-毒性关系匹配的骨架更能识别真实的 MTD。

结论

通过模拟,CRM 通常优于 3+3 法,用于临床和理论真实的剂量-毒性关系。观察到,对真实骨架的准确估计并不总是优于通用骨架,因此应用广泛的置信区间可能允许使用通用骨架。需要进一步的工作来确定最佳骨架。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3ee7/7786936/b52d1909042d/12885_2020_7703_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验