Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35852048›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022

Designing phase I oncology dose escalation using dose-exposure-toxicity models as a complementary approach to model-based dose-toxicity models.

Kristyn Pantoja, Shankar Lanke, Alain Munafo, Anja Victor, Christina Habermehl, Armin Schueler, Karthik Venkatakrishnan, Pascal Girard, Kosalaram Goteti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Moving the needle for oncology dose optimization: A call for action.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kristyn PantojaDepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Shankar LankeEMD Serono Research Institute, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.
Alain MunafoMerck Institute for Pharmacometrics, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Anja VictorMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Christina HabermehlMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Armin SchuelerMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3833-5757
Karthik VenkatakrishnanEMD Serono Research Institute, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.
Pascal GirardMerck Institute for Pharmacometrics, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Kosalaram GotetiEMD Serono Research Institute, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the objectives of oncology phase I dose-escalation studies has been to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Although MTD is no longer set as the dose for further development in contemporary oncology drug development, MTD determination is still important for informing the therapeutic index. Bayesian adaptive model-based designs are becoming mainstream in oncology first-in-human trials. Herein, we illustrate via simulations the use of systemic exposure in Bayesian adaptive dose-toxicity models to estimate MTD. We extend traditional dose-toxicity models to incorporate pharmacokinetic exposure, which provides information on exposure-toxicity relationships. We pursue dose escalation until the maximum tolerated exposure (corresponding to the MTD) is reached. By leveraging pharmacokinetics, dose escalation considers exposure and interindividual variability on a continuous rather than discrete domain, offering additional information for dose-escalation decisions. To demonstrate this, we generated 1000 simulations (starting dose of 1/25th the reference dose and six dose levels) for several different scenarios. Both rule-based and model-based designs were compared using metrics of potential safety, accuracy, and reliability. The mean results over simulations and different toxicity scenarios showed that model-based designs were better than rule-based methods and that exposure-toxicity model-based methods have the potential to valuably complement dose-toxicity model-based methods. Exposure-toxicity model-based methods had decreased underdose risk accompanied by a relatively smaller increase in overdose risk, resulting in improved net reliability. MTD estimation accuracy was compromised when exposure variability was large, emphasizing the importance of appropriate control of pharmacokinetic variability in phase I dose-escalation studies.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsBayes TheoremDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansReproducibility of ResultsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID35852048
PMCPMC9574748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.