I-II 期临床试验中的风险效益权衡和精确效用。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-18 DOI:10.1177/17407745231214750
Pavlos Msaouel, Juhee Lee, Peter F Thall
{"title":"I-II 期临床试验中的风险效益权衡和精确效用。","authors":"Pavlos Msaouel, Juhee Lee, Peter F Thall","doi":"10.1177/17407745231214750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups.</p><p><strong>Methods and conclusions: </strong>Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"287-297"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11132955/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Pavlos Msaouel, Juhee Lee, Peter F Thall\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745231214750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups.</p><p><strong>Methods and conclusions: </strong>Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"287-297\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11132955/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231214750\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231214750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在早期临床试验中确定最佳剂量至关重要。用不安全或生物无效的剂量进行治疗不太可能在随后的临床试验中取得成功,也不太可能获得监管部门的批准。为新药确定合适的剂量是一个复杂的过程,涉及平衡生物疗效、毒性和患者生活质量等结果的风险和收益。目的:传统的 I 期试验仅依靠毒性来确定剂量,而 I-II 期试验则明确考虑疗效和毒性,这使它们能够确定风险-收益权衡最有利的剂量。考虑患者的协变量也很重要,因为在由预后变量或生物标志物决定的亚组中,"一刀切 "的治疗决策很可能不是最佳的。值得注意的是,根据所研究的预后亚组,估计因子的选择会影响我们的结论。例如,假设反应概率为单调性,当估计指标为平均生存期或中位生存期时,与预后不良亚组相比,较高的治疗剂量可能对预后良好的亚组产生更明显的疗效。相反,当估计指标为 3 个月生存概率时,与预后良好的亚组相比,较高的治疗剂量对预后不良的亚组产生更明显的疗效:在本文中,我们首先阐述了为什么在设计临床试验时必须考虑临床实践,并概述了设计临床试验的步骤。然后,我们回顾了一种基于效用的 I-II 期精准设计,这种效用是针对预后亚组量身定制的,能体现疗效-毒性风险-效益权衡的特点。该设计选择每位患者的剂量,以优化其预期效用,并允许不同预后亚组的患者使用不同的最佳剂量。我们以一种治疗转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌的新疗法的剂量探索试验来说明这种设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.

Background: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life.

Purpose: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups.

Methods and conclusions: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
×
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