Dose Finding in Phase I Cancer Trials

Author(s):  
Akihiro Hirakawa ◽  
Hiroyuki Sato ◽  
Takashi Daimon ◽  
Shigeyuki Matsui
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (35) ◽  
pp. 4367-4372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa K. Cousino ◽  
Stephen J. Zyzanski ◽  
Amy D. Yamokoski ◽  
Rebecca A. Hazen ◽  
Justin N. Baker ◽  
...  

Purpose Quality informed consent should provide a clear understanding of the purpose of the research. Given the ethical challenges of pediatric phase I cancer trials, it is important to investigate physician-parent communication during informed consent conferences (ICCs) and parental understanding of the purpose of these studies. Methods In the multisite Informed Consent in Pediatric Phase I Cancer Trials study, 85 ICCs for phase I research between June 2008 and May 2011 were directly observed, and 60 parents were subsequently interviewed. The scientific purpose was defined as composite understanding of drug safety, dose finding, and dose escalation. We determined the frequency with which physicians explained these and other phase I–related concepts during the ICC. Parent interviews were analyzed to determine understanding. Results The child was present at 83 of 85 ICCs. Only 32% of parents demonstrated substantial understanding of the scientific purpose of phase I cancer trials; 35% demonstrated little or no understanding. Parents of higher socioeconomic status and racial majority status were more likely to understand the scientific purpose. Factors associated with understanding included physician explanation of the goal of the applicable phase I protocol offered (explained in 85% of ICCs) and explanation of the dose cohorts (explained in 43% of ICCs). Physicians explained drug safety in 23% of ICCs, dose finding in 52% of ICCs, and dose escalation in 53% of ICCs. Conclusion Many parents of children participating in phase I trials do not understand the purpose of these trials. Physician-parent communication about the purpose of phase I research is lacking during ICCs.


2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 478-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Zohar ◽  
Qing Lian ◽  
Vincent Levy ◽  
Ken Cheung ◽  
Anastasia Ivanova ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110015
Author(s):  
Matthew J Schipper ◽  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jeremy MG Taylor ◽  
Randall K Ten Haken ◽  
Christina Tsien ◽  
...  

Introduction: In some phase I trial settings, there is uncertainty in assessing whether a given patient meets the criteria for dose-limiting toxicity. Methods: We present a design which accommodates dose-limiting toxicity outcomes that are assessed with uncertainty for some patients. Our approach could be utilized in many available phase I trial designs, but we focus on the continual reassessment method due to its popularity. We assume that for some patients, instead of the usual binary dose-limiting toxicity outcome, we observe a physician-assessed probability of dose-limiting toxicity specific to a given patient. Data augmentation is used to estimate the posterior probabilities of dose-limiting toxicity at each dose level based on both the fully observed and partially observed patient outcomes. A simulation study is used to assess the performance of the design relative to using the continual reassessment method on the true dose-limiting toxicity outcomes (available in simulation setting only) and relative to simple thresholding approaches. Results: Among the designs utilizing the partially observed outcomes, our proposed design has the best overall performance in terms of probability of selecting correct maximum tolerated dose and number of patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose. Conclusion: Incorporating uncertainty in dose-limiting toxicity assessment can improve the performance of the continual reassessment method design.


Author(s):  
Georgios E. Christakopoulos ◽  
Todd E. DeFor ◽  
Stefanie Hage ◽  
John E. Wagner ◽  
Michael A. Linden ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (14) ◽  
pp. 3683-3691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald W. Northfelt ◽  
Ramesh K. Ramanathan ◽  
Peter A. Cohen ◽  
Daniel D. Von Hoff ◽  
Glen J. Weiss ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. S174-S175
Author(s):  
D. Zingel ◽  
C. Bolling ◽  
T. Graefe ◽  
D. Radtke ◽  
J. Latz ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (24) ◽  
pp. 3194-3213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Hirakawa ◽  
Nolan A. Wages ◽  
Hiroyuki Sato ◽  
Shigeyuki Matsui

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document