title: Practical modifications to the time-to-event continual reassessment method for phase I cancer trials with fast patient accrual and late-onset toxicities.
abstract: The goal of phase I cancer trials is to determine the highest dose of a treatment regimen with an acceptable toxicity rate. Traditional designs for phase I trials, such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) and the 3 + 3 design, require each patient or a cohort of patients to be fully evaluated for the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) before new patients can be enrolled. As such, the trial duration may be prohibitively long. The Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM, Cheung and Chappell, 2000) circumvents this limitation by allowing staggered patient accrual without the need for complete DLT follow-up of previously treated patients. However, in the setting of fast patient accrual and late-onset toxicities, the TITE-CRM results in overly aggressive dose escalation and exposes a considerable number of patients to toxic doses. We examine a modification to the TITE-CRM proposed by the original TITE-CRM creator and propose an alternative approach useful in this setting by incorporating an accrual suspension rule. A simulation study designed based on a neuro-oncology trial indicates that the modified methods provide a much improved degree of safety than the TITE-CRM while maintaining desirable design accuracy. The practical aspects of the proposed designs are discussed. The modifications presented are useful when planning phase I trials involving chemoradiation therapy.
authors: Biometric Research Branch, National Caner Institute, Executive Plaza North, Room 8124, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, USA. polleymc@mail.nih.gov
authors: Mei-Yin C
authors: MY
authors: Polley
references: Control Clin Trials. 2002 Jun;23(3):240-56
references: 12057877
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 May 20;101(10):708-20
references: 19436029
references: Br J Cancer. 2006 Mar 13;94(5):609-13
references: 16434987
references: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24(27):4426-33
references: 16983110
references: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):238-43
references: 14665608
references: Biometrics. 2001 Dec;57(4):1018-29
references: 11764240
references: Stat Med. 2009 Oct 30;28(24):3012-28
references: 19672839
references: Biometrics. 2000 Dec;56(4):1177-82
references: 11129476
references: Stat Med. 1999 Jun 15;18(11):1307-21
references: 10399198
references: Biometrics. 1989 Sep;45(3):925-37
references: 2790129
references: Stat Med. 1994 Sep 30;13(18):1799-806
references: 7997713
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1998;41(6):429-36
references: 9554585
references: Stat Med. 1995 Jun 15;14(11):1149-61
references: 7667557
references: Stat Med. 2002 Sep 30;21(18):2757-70
references: 12228889
references: Stat Med. 1993 Jun 30;12(12):1093-108
references: 8210815
references: Clin Trials. 2009 Jun;6(3):227-38
references: 19528132
references: Stat Med. 2006 Jun 30;25(12):2071-83
references: 16217853
references: J Clin Oncol. 2000 Feb;18(3):684-92
references: 10653884
references: Control Clin Trials. 2003 Dec;24(6):669-81
references: 14662273
references: Biometrics. 1996 Jun;52(2):673-84
references: 8672707
references: Stat Med. 1991 Nov;10(11):1647-64
references: 1792460
references: Biometrics. 2002 Sep;58(3):671-4
references: 12230003
references: Biostatistics. 2001 Jun;2(2):203-15
references: 12933550
references: Int J Stroke. 2008 Aug;3(3):210-8
references: 18705902
references: Stat Med. 2002 Jul 15;21(13):1805-23
references: 12111891
references: Biostatistics. 2008 Jul;9(3):442-57
references: 18084008
references: Biometrics. 1990 Mar;46(1):33-48
references: 2350571