Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology
- PMID: 32446637
- PMCID: PMC7647940
- DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100583
Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology
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.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest All authors have confirmed that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this work.
Figures





References
-
- Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45:925–37, 1989 - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical