Practical Implementation of Bayesian Dose-Escalation Procedures

Abstract

This paper reviews Bayesian dose-escalation procedures for phase 1 clinical trials and describes a systematic approach to their implementation. The methodology is constructed for studies in which each subject is administered a single dose of an experimental drug and provides a single binary response, referred to here as toxicity or no toxicity. It is assumed that the probability of toxicity rises with log dose of drug according to a logistic regression model.

It is suggested that the choice of suitable prior distributions be aided via graphical representations of their properties and simulation investigations of their consequences. Possible safety constraints and stopping rules are described. Given this information, the recommended doses for the first cohort of subjects can be computed. Once their responses become available, subjective distributions can be updated, and the recommended doses for the second cohort can be determined. The procedure continues in this way until a stopping rule is reached, or until some maximum number of subjects has been observed. Clinical investigators are free to overrule the doses recommended by the procedure and to substitute those that they feel are more appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Whitehead J, Brunier H. Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Stat Med. 1995;14:885–893.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Whitehead J. Williamson D. An evaluation of Bayesian decision procedures for dose-finding Studies. J Biopharma Stat. 1998;8:445–467.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Judson IR. Evaluation of new anticancer drugs. In Horwich A, ed. Oncology: Multidisciplinary Textbook. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall; 1995:147–159.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carter SK. Study design principles in the clinical evaluation of new drugs as developed by the chemotherapy programme of the National Cancer Institute. In: Staquet MJ. ed. The Design of Clinical Trials in Cancer Therapy. Brussels, Belgium: Editions Scientific Europe; 1973: 242–289.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Whitehead J. Bayesian decision procedures with application to dose-finding studies. Int J Pharma Med. 1997;11:201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lin Y. Shih WJ. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2001;2:203–215.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual Reassessment Method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990:46:33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, Rubinstein LV, Christian MC, and Simon RM. A comparison of two phase I designs. Stat Med. 1994;13: 1799–1806.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharma Stat. 1994;4:147–164.s

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med. 1995;14:1149–1161.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    O’Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996; 52:673–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    O’Quigley J. Dose-finding design using continual reassessment method. In: Crowley. J. ed. Handbook of Statistics in Clinical Oncology. New York, NY: Dekker; 2001:35-72.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Heyd JM, Carlin BP. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Slat Med. 1999; 18:1507–1321.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    O’Quigley J, Reiner E. A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method. Biometrika. 1998;85:741–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    O’Quigley J. Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics. 2002;3: 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ferry DR, Smith A, Malkhandi J, Fyfe DW, de-Takats PG, Anderson D, Baker J, Kerr DJ. Phase I clinical trial of the flavonoid quercetin—pharmacokinetics and evidence for in vivo tyrosine kinase inhibition. Clin Cancer Research. 1996; 2:659-668.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med. 1996;15:1605–1618.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wang O, Faries DE. A two-stage dose selection strategy in phase I trials with wide dose ranges. J Biopharma Stat. 2000;10:319–333.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med. 1998;17:1103–1120.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Casparini M, Eisele J. A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics. 2000;56: 609–615.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhou Y, Whitehead J. Bayesian ADEPT: Operating Manual. Reading, United Kingdom: The University of Reading; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yinghui Zhou PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhou, Y., Whitehead, J. Practical Implementation of Bayesian Dose-Escalation Procedures. Ther Innov Regul Sci 37, 45–59 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150303700108

Download citation

Key Words

  • Bayesian statistics
  • Computer software
  • Decision procedure
  • Dose-escalation
  • Phase 1 study