Yuan Ji , Yunxuan Zhang , Andrew Ji , Shivaani Kummar
{"title":"The generalized 3+3 (G3) design for Phase I trials: A design for clinicians","authors":"Yuan Ji , Yunxuan Zhang , Andrew Ji , Shivaani Kummar","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2025.108077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To construct a simple and software-free dose-finding design that perform comparable to modern designs relying on statistical models.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Generalized 3 + 3 (G3) design uses a set of arithmetic rules that depend on the number of participants enrolled and the number experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Computer simulations are conducted based on a set of scenarios published in the literature and adopted by FDA.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The G3 design provides identical decisions to 3 + 3 for 3 and 6 participants, and highly similar ones to modern designs. It performs better in selecting the MTD and patient allocation than 3 + 3 and comparable to modern designs. However, modern designs rely on specialized software while the G3 design can be generated by hand.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The G3 design extends the widely used 3 + 3 design by enabling flexible decision-making for any number of participants enrolled at a dose level. The G3 design is straightforward, transparent, and can be implemented without specialized software—making it an ideal option for clinicians.</div></div><div><h3>Limitation</h3><div>The G3 design is for classical dose-finding trials based on toxicity outcome. Modern therapeutics may rely on additional outcomes like efficacy or pharmacodynamic effects to define optimal doses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":"158 ","pages":"Article 108077"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155171442500271X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To construct a simple and software-free dose-finding design that perform comparable to modern designs relying on statistical models.
Methods
The Generalized 3 + 3 (G3) design uses a set of arithmetic rules that depend on the number of participants enrolled and the number experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Computer simulations are conducted based on a set of scenarios published in the literature and adopted by FDA.
Results
The G3 design provides identical decisions to 3 + 3 for 3 and 6 participants, and highly similar ones to modern designs. It performs better in selecting the MTD and patient allocation than 3 + 3 and comparable to modern designs. However, modern designs rely on specialized software while the G3 design can be generated by hand.
Conclusion
The G3 design extends the widely used 3 + 3 design by enabling flexible decision-making for any number of participants enrolled at a dose level. The G3 design is straightforward, transparent, and can be implemented without specialized software—making it an ideal option for clinicians.
Limitation
The G3 design is for classical dose-finding trials based on toxicity outcome. Modern therapeutics may rely on additional outcomes like efficacy or pharmacodynamic effects to define optimal doses.
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.