Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;44(6):100583.
doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100583. Epub 2020 May 7.

Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology

Affiliations

Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology

Paul H Frankel et al. Curr Probl Cancer. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Background: There is increasing use of Phase I statistical designs to find a dose that causes rapidly emerging and particularly concerning severe or life-threatening toxicities (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs) in a specified percent of patients most commonly 25%. While a convenient statistical framework, the foundation for selecting any specified target DLT rate, and its relevance to the recommended Phase II dose is generally lacking.

Method: We surveyed 78 medical oncologists, most (69%) with experience as a principal investigator on a Phase I study, to ascertain their opinions related to this approach to Phase I studies and the targets often chosen.

Results: Eighty-seven percent of respondents preferred severe toxicities in only 5%-10% of patients, consistent with 58% of respondents noting that 10% or fewer patients experience severe toxicities in the first cycle with standard outpatient treatments. The survey also documented in an example that the majority (62%) of physicians modify their patient selection during the conduct of the study based on observed toxicity and 78% note that higher toxicity is acceptable in patients where a cure is more likely.

Conclusion: DLT-target rate designs search for a single target that is rarely well-supported in a patient population that is not stable. The most common target used is inconsistent with the toxicity of most clinically used drugs and investigator preference and can lead to the pursuit of unacceptable doses. Use of Phase I trial designs with a target DLT rate should be limited to settings with a well-justified target and should specify how the target relates to the recommended Phase II dose.

Keywords: Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); Medical oncology; Phase I designs; Survey; Target DLT rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest All authors have confirmed that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this work.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses of 78 medical oncologists to 5 different questions. The specific question is listed above each pie chart, and the options for the respondent to choose from is provided on the right-hand side.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses of 78 medical oncologists to 5 different questions. The specific question is listed above each pie chart, and the options for the respondent to choose from is provided on the right-hand side.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses of 78 medical oncologists to 5 different questions. The specific question is listed above each pie chart, and the options for the respondent to choose from is provided on the right-hand side.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses of 78 medical oncologists to 5 different questions. The specific question is listed above each pie chart, and the options for the respondent to choose from is provided on the right-hand side.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses of 78 medical oncologists to 5 different questions. The specific question is listed above each pie chart, and the options for the respondent to choose from is provided on the right-hand side.

References

    1. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45:925–37, 1989 - PubMed
    1. Sposto R, Groshen S: A wide-spectrum paired comparison of the properties of the rolling 6 and 3+3 phase I study designs. Contemp Clin Trials 32(5): 694–703, 2011 - PubMed
    1. Skolnik JM, Barrette JS, Jayaraman B, et al.: Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J Clin Oncol 26(2):190–5, 2008 - PubMed
    1. Simon R, Friedlin B, Rubinstein L, et al.: Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 89(15):1138–47, 1997 - PubMed
    1. Frankel P, Longmate J, Sposto R, et al.: The Three-at-Risk Design: Reducing the duration of phase 1 trials with queue-based method. JSM 2016, Abstract 263.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances