Enhancing dose selection in phase I cancer trials: Extending the Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with non-DLT adverse events integration

This work introduces the Burdened Bayesian Logistic Regression Model (BBLRM), an enhancement of the Bayesian Logistic Regression Model (BLRM) for dose-finding in phase I oncology trials. The BLRM determines the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). However, clinicians often perceive model-based designs like BLRM as complex and less conservative than rule-based designs, such as the widely used 3 + 3 method. To address these concerns, BBLRM incorporates non-DLT adverse events (nDLTAEs), which, although not severe enough to be DLTs, indicate potential toxicity risks at higher doses. BBLRM introduces an additional parameter δ to account for nDLTAEs, adjusting toxicity probability estimates to make dose escalation more conservative while maintaining accurate MTD allocation. This parameter, generated basing on the proportion of patients experiencing nDLTAEs, is tuned to balance conservatism with model performance, reducing the risk of selecting overly toxic doses. Additionally, involving clinicians in identifying nDLTAEs enhances their engagement in the dose-finding process. A simulation study compares BBLRM with two other BLRM methods and a two-stage Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) incorporating nDLTAEs. Results show that BBLRM reduces the proportion of toxic doses selected as MTD without compromising the accuracy in MTD identification. These findings suggest that integrating nDLTAEs can improve the safety and acceptance of model-based designs in phase I oncology trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Published
2025-11-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2025.2589734
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Enhancing dose selection in phase I cancer trials: Extending the Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with non-DLT adverse events integration

Andrea Nizzardo, Marco Pergher, Luca Genetti
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
article

Enhancing dose selection in phase I cancer trials: Extending the Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with non-DLT adverse events integration

Andrea Nizzardo, Marco Pergher, Luca Genetti
article en

Abstract

This work introduces the Burdened Bayesian Logistic Regression Model (BBLRM), an enhancement of the Bayesian Logistic Regression Model (BLRM) for dose-finding in phase I oncology trials. The BLRM determines the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). However, clinicians often perceive model-based designs like BLRM as complex and less conservative than rule-based designs, such as the widely used 3 + 3 method. To address these concerns, BBLRM incorporates non-DLT adverse events (nDLTAEs), which, although not severe enough to be DLTs, indicate potential toxicity risks at higher doses. BBLRM introduces an additional parameter δ to account for nDLTAEs, adjusting toxicity probability estimates to make dose escalation more conservative while maintaining accurate MTD allocation. This parameter, generated basing on the proportion of patients experiencing nDLTAEs, is tuned to balance conservatism with model performance, reducing the risk of selecting overly toxic doses. Additionally, involving clinicians in identifying nDLTAEs enhances their engagement in the dose-finding process. A simulation study compares BBLRM with two other BLRM methods and a two-stage Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) incorporating nDLTAEs. Results show that BBLRM reduces the proportion of toxic doses selected as MTD without compromising the accuracy in MTD identification. These findings suggest that integrating nDLTAEs can improve the safety and acceptance of model-based designs in phase I oncology trials.

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Evotec (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.