Tips for Accelerating BOIN Design.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Masahiro Kojima, Wu Wende, Henry Zhao
{"title":"Tips for Accelerating BOIN Design.","authors":"Masahiro Kojima, Wu Wende, Henry Zhao","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00692-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During discussions at the Data Science Roundtable meeting in Japan, there were instances where the adoption of the BOIN design was declined, attributed to the extension of study duration and increased sample size in comparison to the 3 + 3 design. We introduce an accelerated BOIN design aimed at completing a clinical phase I trial at a pace comparable to the 3 + 3 design. Additionally, we introduce how we could have applied the BOIN design within our company, which predominantly utilized the 3 + 3 design for most of its clinical oncology dose escalation trials. The accelerated BOIN design is adaptable by using efficiently designated stopping criterion for the existing BOIN framework. Our approach is to terminate the dose escalation study if the number of evaluable patients treated at the current dose reaches 6 and the decision is to stay at the current dose for the next cohort of patients. In addition, for lower dosage levels, considering a cohort size smaller than 3 may be feasible when there are no safety concerns from non-clinical studies. We demonstrate the accelerated BOIN design using a case study and subsequently evaluate the performance of our proposed design through a simulation study. In the simulation study, the average difference in the percentage of correct MTD selection between the accelerated BOIN design and the standard BOIN design was - 2.43%, the average study duration and the average sample size of the accelerated BOIN design was reduced by 14.8 months and 9.22, respectively, compared with the standard BOIN design.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":"1129-1137"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00692-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During discussions at the Data Science Roundtable meeting in Japan, there were instances where the adoption of the BOIN design was declined, attributed to the extension of study duration and increased sample size in comparison to the 3 + 3 design. We introduce an accelerated BOIN design aimed at completing a clinical phase I trial at a pace comparable to the 3 + 3 design. Additionally, we introduce how we could have applied the BOIN design within our company, which predominantly utilized the 3 + 3 design for most of its clinical oncology dose escalation trials. The accelerated BOIN design is adaptable by using efficiently designated stopping criterion for the existing BOIN framework. Our approach is to terminate the dose escalation study if the number of evaluable patients treated at the current dose reaches 6 and the decision is to stay at the current dose for the next cohort of patients. In addition, for lower dosage levels, considering a cohort size smaller than 3 may be feasible when there are no safety concerns from non-clinical studies. We demonstrate the accelerated BOIN design using a case study and subsequently evaluate the performance of our proposed design through a simulation study. In the simulation study, the average difference in the percentage of correct MTD selection between the accelerated BOIN design and the standard BOIN design was - 2.43%, the average study duration and the average sample size of the accelerated BOIN design was reduced by 14.8 months and 9.22, respectively, compared with the standard BOIN design.

Abstract Image

加速 BOIN 设计的技巧。
在日本举行的数据科学圆桌会议的讨论中,有人拒绝采用 BOIN 设计,原因是与 3 + 3 设计相比,研究时间延长,样本量增加。我们介绍了一种加速 BOIN 设计,旨在以与 3+3 设计相当的速度完成临床 I 期试验。此外,我们还介绍了如何在我们公司内部应用 BOIN 设计,我们公司的大部分临床肿瘤学剂量递增试验主要采用 3 + 3 设计。通过在现有的 BOIN 框架中使用有效的指定停止标准,加速 BOIN 设计是可以调整的。我们的方法是,如果在当前剂量下接受治疗的可评估患者人数达到 6 人,则终止剂量升级研究,并决定在下一批患者中继续使用当前剂量。此外,对于低剂量水平,如果非临床研究不存在安全性问题,考虑小于 3 人的队列规模也是可行的。我们通过案例研究展示了加速 BOIN 设计,并随后通过模拟研究评估了我们提出的设计的性能。在模拟研究中,加速 BOIN 设计与标准 BOIN 设计的 MTD 选择正确率平均相差 - 2.43%,与标准 BOIN 设计相比,加速 BOIN 设计的平均研究时间和平均样本量分别缩短了 14.8 个月和 9.22 个月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信