title: The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The rolling six design (RSD) is currently being used by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) as their standard design for Phase I trials. Because the COG has large multi-center trials with fast accrual, the motivation for adopting the RSD is to hasten accrual and shorten the duration of their trials. However, trial suspension due to completion of follow-up still cannot be entirely avoided by the RSD. Therefore, a design that allows continuous enrollment of patients throughout the entire trial is needed.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To demonstrate the superior performance of the Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) with continuous patient recruitment relative to the RSD, in terms of identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and reducing exposure of patients to toxic doses.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using scenarios that were based on an actual pediatric Phase I trial at the University of Michigan, Monte Carlo simulations were used to investigate the operational characteristics of RSD and TITE-CRM.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The TITE-CRM treated all available patients, identified the MTD more accurately than the RSD and did not increase the probability of exposing patients to toxic doses.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both the TITE-CRM and RSD assume that the probability of dose limiting toxicity increases with higher dose level.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The TITE-CRM, which allows for continual enrollment of patients, provides a safe design for pediatric oncology Phase I trials with better accuracy than the RSD.
authors: Biostatistics Unit, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. zhaolili@umich.edu
authors: Lili
authors: L
authors: Zhao
authors: Julia
authors: J
authors: Lee
authors: Rajen
authors: R
authors: Mody
authors: Thomas M
authors: TM
authors: Braun
references: Stat Med. 1995 Jun 15;14(11):1149-61
references: 7667557
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):190-5
references: 18182661
references: Stat Med. 2001 Aug 30;20(16):2399-408
references: 11512130
references: Stat Med. 2006 Nov 15;25(21):3668-78
references: 16381057
references: Biostatistics. 2001 Jun;2(2):203-15
references: 12933550
references: Stat Med. 2009 Oct 30;28(24):3012-28
references: 19672839
references: Contemp Clin Trials. 2010 May;31(3):259-70
references: 20298812
references: Stat Med. 1994 Sep 30;13(18):1799-806
references: 7997713
references: Biometrics. 1990 Mar;46(1):33-48
references: 2350571
references: Cancer. 2010 Dec 1;116(23):5420-31
references: 20672358
references: Stat Med. 1998 Jul 30;17(14):1537-49
references: 9699228
references: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24(27):4426-33
references: 16983110
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):170-1
references: 18182656
references: Clin Trials. 2006;3(1):57-71
references: 16539090
references: Stat Med. 2006 Jun 30;25(12):2071-83
references: 16217853
references: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):238-43
references: 14665608
references: J Biopharm Stat. 1994 Jul;4(2):147-64
references: 7951271
references: J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19(3):437-55
references: 19384687
references: Biometrics. 2000 Dec;56(4):1177-82
references: 11129476