Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials

Y Yuan, KR Hess, SG Hilsenbeck, MR Gilbert - Clinical Cancer Research, 2016 - AACR
Y Yuan, KR Hess, SG Hilsenbeck, MR Gilbert
Clinical Cancer Research, 2016AACR
Despite more than two decades of publications that offer more innovative model-based
designs, the classical 3+ 3 design remains the most dominant phase I trial design in
practice. In this article, we introduce a new trial design, the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN)
design. The BOIN design is easy to implement in a way similar to the 3+ 3 design, but is
more flexible for choosing the target toxicity rate and cohort size and yields a substantially
better performance that is comparable with that of more complex model-based designs. The …
Abstract
Despite more than two decades of publications that offer more innovative model-based designs, the classical 3 + 3 design remains the most dominant phase I trial design in practice. In this article, we introduce a new trial design, the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design. The BOIN design is easy to implement in a way similar to the 3 + 3 design, but is more flexible for choosing the target toxicity rate and cohort size and yields a substantially better performance that is comparable with that of more complex model-based designs. The BOIN design contains the 3 + 3 design and the accelerated titration design as special cases, thus linking it to established phase I approaches. A numerical study shows that the BOIN design generally outperforms the 3 + 3 design and the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design. The BOIN design is more likely than the 3 + 3 design to correctly select the MTD and allocate more patients to the MTD. Compared with the mTPI design, the BOIN design has a substantially lower risk of overdosing patients and generally a higher probability of correctly selecting the MTD. User-friendly software is freely available to facilitate the application of the BOIN design. Clin Cancer Res; 22(17); 4291–301. ©2016 AACR.
AACR