Shortening the Timeline of Pediatric Phase I Trials: The Rolling Six Design
- 10 January 2008
- journal article
- phase i-and-clinical-pharmacology
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 26 (2), 190-195
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7712
Abstract
To shorten the study conduct timeline of pediatric phase I oncology trials by employing a novel trial design. A comparison of the traditional 3 + 3 patients per cohort, phase I trial design with a novel, rolling six design was performed by using discrete event simulation. The rolling six design allows for accrual of two to six patients concurrently onto a dose level based on the number of patients currently enrolled and evaluable, the number experiencing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the number still at risk of developing a DLT. Clinical trial simulations (n = 1,000) were based on historical data and were performed using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Study timelines and patient numbers were determined for each design, and safety was assessed as a function of the number of DLTs observed. In twelve completed historical studies, the median time to study completion was 452 days (range, 220 to 606 days); number of evaluable participants enrolled was 22 (range, 11 to 33), and DLTs occurring per study was three (range, 0 to 5). In 1,000 study simulations, in which the average time to new patient accrual was 10 days, the average ± standard deviation (SD) time to study completion was 294 ± 75 days for the rolling six design versus 350 ± 84 days for the 3 + 3 design, whereas the number of DLTs per study was the same (average ± SD, 3.3 ± 1.1 v 3.2 ± 1.1 for the rolling six and 3 + 3 designs, respectively). The rolling six design may significantly decrease the duration of pediatric phase I studies without increasing the risk of toxicity. The design will be tested prospectively in upcoming Children's Oncology Group phase I trials.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Phase I research and the meaning of direct benefitThe Journal of Pediatrics, 2006
- Can discrete event simulation be of use in modelling major depression?Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 2006
- Pediatric Phase I Trials in Oncology: An Analysis of Study Conduct EfficiencyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- A model‐based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I cancer clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 2005
- A Clinically Based Discrete-Event Simulation of End-Stage Liver Disease and the Organ Allocation ProcessMedical Decision Making, 2005
- Discrete Event Simulation of Emergency Department Activity: A Platform for System‐level Operations ResearchAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2004
- Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial designComputational Statistics & Data Analysis, 1999
- Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1998
- Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studiesStatistics in Medicine, 1995
- AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHODS USING A PRELIMINARY UP‐AND‐DOWN DESIGN IN A DOSE FINDING STUDY IN CANCER PATIENTS, IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE A GREATER RANGE OF DOSESStatistics in Medicine, 1995