Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2025

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials
Pavlos Msaouel1,2,3, Juhee Lee4, Peter F Thall5
1Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
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.
Insights
Optimizing drug doses in early clinical trials is crucial. A precision phase I-II design tailors doses to patient subgroups, balancing efficacy and toxicity for better risk-benefit profiles.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Pharmacology
- Biostatistics
- Oncology Drug Development
Background:
- Optimal dose identification in early-phase clinical trials is critical for therapeutic success and regulatory approval.
- Suboptimal dosing can lead to ineffective or unsafe treatments, jeopardizing subsequent trial phases and market access.
- Dose-finding requires balancing biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life.
Purpose of the Study:
- To introduce a precision phase I-II clinical trial design that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity.
- To incorporate patient covariates and prognostic subgroups for personalized dose selection.
- To optimize the risk-benefit trade-off by tailoring doses to individual patient characteristics and subgroups.
Main Methods:
- Developed a stepwise process for clinical trial design, integrating clinical practice considerations.
- Proposed a precision phase I-II design utilizing utility functions tailored to prognostic subgroups.
- The design optimizes individual patient expected utility, allowing for subgroup-specific optimal doses.
Main Results:
- The precision design enables identification of optimal doses that maximize expected utility for individual patients.
- Demonstrated that different prognostic subgroups may benefit from distinct optimal doses.
- Illustrated the application of the design in a dose-finding trial for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Conclusions:
- Precision dose-finding designs are essential for maximizing therapeutic benefits while minimizing risks.
- Tailoring doses to prognostic subgroups improves the risk-benefit profile in early-phase trials.
- This approach enhances the likelihood of success in subsequent clinical development and regulatory approval.
More Related Videos
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Preclinical Development: Overview
Therapeutic Index
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...