Medical Statistics Consultancy Ltd, London, W4 5XF, UK.
Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
BMC Cancer. 2021 Jan 5;21(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07703-6.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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。
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%。
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。
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。