剂量递增设计对临床试验中抗癌药物安全性和发展的影响。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Atsushi Nonami, Kensuke Matsuda, Kouta Funakoshi, Ryosuke Kato, Hideaki Takahashi, Yoko Edahiro
{"title":"剂量递增设计对临床试验中抗癌药物安全性和发展的影响。","authors":"Atsushi Nonami,&nbsp;Kensuke Matsuda,&nbsp;Kouta Funakoshi,&nbsp;Ryosuke Kato,&nbsp;Hideaki Takahashi,&nbsp;Yoko Edahiro","doi":"10.1111/cts.70367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The operational characteristics of dose-escalation design in phase I studies have been studied using simulations; however, there is limited analysis regarding its effects on the results of clinical trials. We collected the data of 394 clinical trials involving dose-escalation studies for anticancer drugs submitted to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2013 and 2022. We used the internal data of the PMDA and published papers and analyzed outcomes such as enrollment and drug development. We identified model-based designs and rule-based designs as the two primary designs. The median number of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)-evaluated patients was higher for model-based designs than for rule-based designs. The proportion of rule-based designs was higher in Japanese trials and that of model-based designs was higher in multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). The determined recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was consistent with the approved dose in all trials (13/13) involving model-based designs and in 84.0% (21/25) of trials involving rule-based designs, although it was not statistically significant. The proportion of progression to the next study phase was 50.0% (61/122) for rule-based designs and 56.3% (36/64) for model-based designs. Similar trends in these outcomes were observed when MRCTs and Japanese trials were examined separately. Model-based designs might require more DLT-evaluated patients; however, they might have different operational capabilities compared with rule-based designs, such as selecting an RP2D consistent with the approved dose. The results might help in selecting the optimal dose-escalation methods in future phase I trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Dose-Escalation Design on the Safety and Development of Anticancer Drugs in Clinical Trials\",\"authors\":\"Atsushi Nonami,&nbsp;Kensuke Matsuda,&nbsp;Kouta Funakoshi,&nbsp;Ryosuke Kato,&nbsp;Hideaki Takahashi,&nbsp;Yoko Edahiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cts.70367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The operational characteristics of dose-escalation design in phase I studies have been studied using simulations; however, there is limited analysis regarding its effects on the results of clinical trials. We collected the data of 394 clinical trials involving dose-escalation studies for anticancer drugs submitted to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2013 and 2022. We used the internal data of the PMDA and published papers and analyzed outcomes such as enrollment and drug development. We identified model-based designs and rule-based designs as the two primary designs. The median number of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)-evaluated patients was higher for model-based designs than for rule-based designs. The proportion of rule-based designs was higher in Japanese trials and that of model-based designs was higher in multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). The determined recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was consistent with the approved dose in all trials (13/13) involving model-based designs and in 84.0% (21/25) of trials involving rule-based designs, although it was not statistically significant. The proportion of progression to the next study phase was 50.0% (61/122) for rule-based designs and 56.3% (36/64) for model-based designs. Similar trends in these outcomes were observed when MRCTs and Japanese trials were examined separately. Model-based designs might require more DLT-evaluated patients; however, they might have different operational capabilities compared with rule-based designs, such as selecting an RP2D consistent with the approved dose. The results might help in selecting the optimal dose-escalation methods in future phase I trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"18 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483344/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70367\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

用模拟方法研究了第一阶段研究中剂量递增设计的操作特性;然而,关于其对临床试验结果的影响的分析有限。我们收集了2013年至2022年间提交给药品和医疗器械管理局的394项涉及抗癌药物剂量递增研究的临床试验的数据。我们使用了PMDA的内部数据和发表的论文,并分析了注册和药物开发等结果。我们将基于模型的设计和基于规则的设计确定为两种主要设计。基于模型设计的剂量限制性毒性(DLT)评估患者的中位数高于基于规则的设计。在日本试验中,基于规则的设计比例较高,在多区域临床试验(mrct)中,基于模型的设计比例较高。在所有基于模型设计的试验(13/13)和84.0%(21/25)基于规则设计的试验中,确定的推荐II期剂量(RP2D)与批准剂量一致,尽管没有统计学意义。基于规则的设计进入下一研究阶段的比例为50.0%(61/122),基于模型的设计为56.3%(36/64)。当mrct和日本试验分开检查时,观察到这些结果的类似趋势。基于模型的设计可能需要更多的dlt评估患者;然而,与基于规则的设计相比,它们可能具有不同的操作能力,例如选择与批准剂量一致的RP2D。该结果可能有助于在未来的I期临床试验中选择最佳的剂量递增方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Impact of Dose-Escalation Design on the Safety and Development of Anticancer Drugs in Clinical Trials

Impact of Dose-Escalation Design on the Safety and Development of Anticancer Drugs in Clinical Trials

The operational characteristics of dose-escalation design in phase I studies have been studied using simulations; however, there is limited analysis regarding its effects on the results of clinical trials. We collected the data of 394 clinical trials involving dose-escalation studies for anticancer drugs submitted to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2013 and 2022. We used the internal data of the PMDA and published papers and analyzed outcomes such as enrollment and drug development. We identified model-based designs and rule-based designs as the two primary designs. The median number of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)-evaluated patients was higher for model-based designs than for rule-based designs. The proportion of rule-based designs was higher in Japanese trials and that of model-based designs was higher in multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). The determined recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was consistent with the approved dose in all trials (13/13) involving model-based designs and in 84.0% (21/25) of trials involving rule-based designs, although it was not statistically significant. The proportion of progression to the next study phase was 50.0% (61/122) for rule-based designs and 56.3% (36/64) for model-based designs. Similar trends in these outcomes were observed when MRCTs and Japanese trials were examined separately. Model-based designs might require more DLT-evaluated patients; however, they might have different operational capabilities compared with rule-based designs, such as selecting an RP2D consistent with the approved dose. The results might help in selecting the optimal dose-escalation methods in future phase I trials.

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
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信