Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Letters to the Editor

Measuring Toxicity in Phase I Clinical Trials—Letter

David M. Hyman, Anne Eaton, S. Percy Ivy, David R. Spriggs and Alexia Iasonos
David M. Hyman
1Developmental Therapeutics, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
2Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hymand@mskcc.org
Anne Eaton
3Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Percy Ivy
4Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David R. Spriggs
1Developmental Therapeutics, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
2Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexia Iasonos
3Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3043 Published April 2016
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We thank Drs. Sharma and Ratain for their commentary (1) on our article regarding toxicity attribution in phase I trials (2). The authors raise important points. First, they observe that we only evaluated studies utilizing single agents, and thus, our findings may not be generalizable to phase I combination trials. Phase I combination trials frequently evaluate multiple dose escalations, and these independent and often incomparable dose escalations make it difficult to express the dose an individual patient received relative to the maximum-administered dose (MAD) achieved in the entire trial without restrictive assumptions. Percentage of MAD was a key measure used in our analysis and can be determined without such assumptions in the single-agent trial setting. Combination trials present unique challenges for attribution, because it can be difficult to ascertain which study drug, or whether the combination regimen, caused or exacerbated an individual toxicity. This granularity is useful for dose reductions; however, the overall tolerability of a combination regimen is defined by all the toxicities the combination causes. When considering the relatedness of toxicities to the drug combination overall rather than individual agents, it is unclear whether physicians would truly be more error prone when attributing toxicities caused by multiple-drug regimens when compared with single agents. The methodology presented in our article could be adapted to address the combination question by expressing the MAD separately for each dose escalation.

Sharma and Ratain also indicate that at dose levels approaching 0% of the MAD, grade ≥ I toxicities, at least possibly drug related, were common (60% of patients). We agree that the y-intercepts (rate of toxicity at ‘zero’ dose level) on Figs. 1A and 2C–E likely reflect a systematic tendency for physicians to overattribute toxicities to drug (Supplementary Fig. S3 of our article demonstrates this). However, lack of a gold standard prevents us from definitively saying how much misattribution may have contributed to the adverse event (AE) rates at the lowest doses. In a related point, the authors suggest that the higher rate of “possibly” related grade ≥ 1 toxicity at low dose levels may be taken as indirect evidence that these “possibly” related toxicities are more likely to be truly unrelated (and thus misattributed) than grade ≥ 1 “probably” or “definitely” related toxicities. It is important to note that these differences are likely partially explained by the marginal rates of these types of toxicities (“possibly” related, 30%; “probably” related, 12%; and “definitely” related, 4%). Also, differences in the model predicted rates of “possibly,” “probably,” and “definitely” related toxicities at dose 0 were extrapolated from doses > 0. Most importantly, the corresponding y-intercepts for more clinically meaningful (grade ≥ 3) toxicity, which usually determine the MTD in phase I trials, are much lower across all attribution categories and are similar between “possibly,” “probably,” and “definitely” related categories. Given these factors, we believe caution is necessary when attempting to interpret the clinical significance of differences in y-intercepts across the 5 categories of relatedness.

We also agree that additional useful discrimination may be provided by a 5-tier attribution system; however, there is currently no design in use that can accommodate a probabilistic attribution scale. We previously developed a novel design whereby different toxicities are weighted based on the likelihood of an AE being drug related (3). The design allows physicians to express the degree of confidence in attribution on a continuous scale, which can evolve over time in response to dynamic physician learning. (4). Although phase I trial designs currently in use, with a binary classification system of drug relatedness, are reliable provided that the classification error rates are negligible, the probabilistic design is superior to the current designs in the presence of misattribution (3). Because the probabilistic design does not require every AE to be recorded as either a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) or non-DLT but rather allows AEs for which attribution is associated with some uncertainty to be given a probability score, the impact of attribution error is diminished (3).

A more refined system of attribution that allows physicians to assign a probability score capturing the uncertainty in their assessment that better represents what occurs in clinical practice would be an improvement over the current attribution system. We would reassert that the results of our work suggest that within the framework of the currently used designs and endpoints (DLTs), the standard binary classification system of drug relatedness is adequate.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

  • Received December 16, 2015.
  • Accepted January 8, 2016.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sharma M,
    2. Ratain M
    . Taking a measured approach to toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:527–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Eaton A,
    2. Iasonos A,
    3. Gounder MM,
    4. Pamer EG,
    5. Drilon A,
    6. Vulih D,
    7. et al.
    Toxicity attribution in phase I trials: evaluating the effect of dose on the frequency of related and unrelated toxicities. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:553–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Iasonos A,
    2. O'Quigley J
    . Personalizing attribution of adverse events in phase I oncology studies. [accessed 2015 Dec 15]. Available from: http://works.bepress.com/alexia_iasonos/4/.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Iasonos A,
    2. Gounder M,
    3. Spriggs DR,
    4. Gerecitano JF,
    5. Hyman DM,
    6. Zohar S,
    7. et al.
    The impact of non-drug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I trials. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:5179–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 22 (7)
April 2016
Volume 22, Issue 7
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Measuring Toxicity in Phase I Clinical Trials—Letter
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Measuring Toxicity in Phase I Clinical Trials—Letter
David M. Hyman, Anne Eaton, S. Percy Ivy, David R. Spriggs and Alexia Iasonos
Clin Cancer Res April 1 2016 (22) (7) 1828; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3043

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Measuring Toxicity in Phase I Clinical Trials—Letter
David M. Hyman, Anne Eaton, S. Percy Ivy, David R. Spriggs and Alexia Iasonos
Clin Cancer Res April 1 2016 (22) (7) 1828; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3043
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Drug–Radiotherapy Combination Trial Developments—Response
  • Drug–Radiotherapy Combination Trial Developments—Letter
  • Predicted Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer Patients by Machine Learning—Letter
Show more Letters to the Editor
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement