IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i1p345-d475100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using an Interaction Parameter in Model-Based Phase I Trials for Combination Treatments? A Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Pavel Mozgunov

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK)

  • Rochelle Knight

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK)

  • Helen Barnett

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK)

  • Thomas Jaki

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK
    MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK)

Abstract

There is growing interest in Phase I dose-finding studies studying several doses of more than one agent simultaneously. A number of combination dose-finding designs were recently proposed to guide escalation/de-escalation decisions during the trials. The majority of these proposals are model-based: a parametric combination-toxicity relationship is fitted as data accumulates. Various parameter shapes were considered but the unifying theme for many of these is that typically between 4 and 6 parameters are to be estimated. While more parameters allow for more flexible modelling of the combination-toxicity relationship, this is a challenging estimation problem given the typically small sample size in Phase I trials of between 20 and 60 patients. These concerns gave raise to an ongoing debate whether including more parameters into combination-toxicity model leads to more accurate combination selection. In this work, we extensively study two variants of a 4-parameter logistic model with reduced number of parameters to investigate the effect of modelling assumptions. A framework to calibrate the prior distributions for a given parametric model is proposed to allow for fair comparisons. Via a comprehensive simulation study, we have found that the inclusion of the interaction parameter between two compounds does not provide any benefit in terms of the accuracy of selection, on average, but is found to result in fewer patients allocated to the target combination during the trial.

Suggested Citation

  • Pavel Mozgunov & Rochelle Knight & Helen Barnett & Thomas Jaki, 2021. "Using an Interaction Parameter in Model-Based Phase I Trials for Combination Treatments? A Simulation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:345-:d:475100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/345/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/345/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nolan A. Wages & Mark R. Conaway & John O'Quigley, 2011. "Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1555-1563, December.
    2. Peter F. Thall & Randall E. Millikan & Peter Mueller & Sang-Joon Lee, 2003. "Dose-Finding with Two Agents in Phase I Oncology Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 487-496, September.
    3. Paoletti, Xavier & O'Quigley, John & Maccario, Jean, 2004. "Design efficiency in dose finding studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 197-214, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chunyan Cai & Ying Yuan & Yuan Ji, 2014. "A Bayesian dose finding design for oncology clinical trials of combinational biological agents," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(1), pages 159-173, January.
    2. Beibei Guo & Suyu Liu, 2018. "Optimal Benchmark for Evaluating Drug-Combination Dose-Finding Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 184-201, April.
    3. Márcio A. Diniz & Sungjin Kim & Mourad Tighiouart, 2020. "A Bayesian Adaptive Design in Cancer Phase I Trials Using Dose Combinations with Ordinal Toxicity Grades," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Beibei Guo & Elizabeth Garrett‐Mayer & Suyu Liu, 2021. "A Bayesian phase I/II design for cancer clinical trials combining an immunotherapeutic agent with a chemotherapeutic agent," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1210-1229, November.
    5. Sean M. Devlin & Alexia Iasonos & John O’Quigley, 2021. "Phase I clinical trials in adoptive T‐cell therapies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(4), pages 815-834, August.
    6. Nadine Houede & Peter F. Thall & Hoang Nguyen & Xavier Paoletti & Andrew Kramar, 2010. "Utility-Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 532-540, June.
    7. Guosheng Yin & Ying Yuan, 2009. "Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(2), pages 211-224, May.
    8. Koichi Hashizume & Jun Tshuchida & Takashi Sozu, 2022. "Flexible use of copula‐type model for dose‐finding in drug combination clinical trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1651-1661, December.
    9. Oron Assaf P. & Azriel David & Hoff Peter D., 2011. "Dose-Finding Designs: The Role of Convergence Properties," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, October.
    10. B. Nebiyou Bekele & Yu Shen, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Jointly Modeling Toxicity and Biomarker Expression in a Phase I/II Dose-Finding Trial," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 343-354, June.
    11. Nolan A. Wages & Mark R. Conaway & John O'Quigley, 2011. "Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1555-1563, December.
    12. Xuelin Huang & Swati Biswas & Yasuhiro Oki & Jean-Pierre Issa & Donald A. Berry, 2007. "A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 429-436, June.
    13. Guosheng Yin & Ying Yuan, 2009. "A Latent Contingency Table Approach to Dose Finding for Combinations of Two Agents," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 866-875, September.
    14. Mauro Gasparini & Stuart Bailey & Beat Neuenschwander, 2010. "Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 543-544, May.
    15. Kai Wang & Anastasia Ivanova, 2005. "Two-Dimensional Dose Finding in Discrete Dose Space," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 217-222, March.
    16. Monia Ezzalfani, 2019. "How to design a dose-finding study on combined agents: Choice of design and development of R functions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Mark R. Conaway & Stephanie Dunbar & Shyamal D. Peddada, 2004. "Designs for Single- or Multiple-Agent Phase I Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 661-669, September.
    18. Pavel Mozgunov & Thomas Jaki, 2020. "An information theoretic approach for selecting arms in clinical trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1223-1247, December.
    19. Bethany Jablonski Horton & Nolan A. Wages & Ryan D. Gentzler, 2021. "Bayesian Design for Identifying Cohort-Specific Optimal Dose Combinations Based on Multiple Endpoints: Application to a Phase I Trial in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-10, October.
    20. Thomas M. Braun & Shufang Wang, 2010. "A Hierarchical Bayesian Design for Phase I Trials of Novel Combinations of Cancer Therapeutic Agents," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 805-812, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:345-:d:475100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.