Abstract:Background/aims: In pediatric oncology, a Phase II trial often utilizes a safety run-in phase followed by an efficacy phase that enrolls at the dose level selected based on the safety run-in. Different from a Phase I trial, a Phase II safety run-in often assesses a very small number of dose levels. In the context of a safety run-in that assesses two or three dose levels, this article aims to compare three design methods, including the algorithm-based designs 3 + 3 and Rolling 6, and the model-assisted designs such as the Bayesian optimal interval design. Methods: Extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare operating characteristics of the three design methods for a safety run-in with two or three dose levels, varying the starting dose level. Results: The performance of algorithm-based and model-assisted designs can be influenced by selection of the starting dose level, with trials starting at a lower dose level having a higher probability of selecting a low dose or considering all doses as toxic. The impact is larger for 3 + 3 and Rolling 6 but to a lesser extent for Bayesian optimal interval design. For a safety run-in with two dose levels, using 3 + 3 or Rolling 6 and starting at the higher dose often lead to similar performance to Bayesian optimal interval design. For safety run-in with three dose levels, starting at the middle dose with 3 + 3, Rolling 6 or Bayesian optimal interval design is a good compromise between improving correct dose selection and imposing a toxic dose to less patients. Conclusions: Despite being sensitive to the starting dose level, the 3 + 3, Rolling 6 and Bayesian optimal interval designs overall demonstrate reasonable performance, which can be further improved with wise selection of the starting dose level. The Rolling 6 design remains the recommended design method especially if pharmacokinetics is important or required with this design having the feature of treating six patients per dose level. When designing a safety run-in, selection of a design method or selection of a starting dose should consider both the performance of the design approaches with different choices of a starting dose level and the magnitude of safety concerns with the dose levels under investigation.

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials.

Comparative review of novel model‐assisted designs for phase I/II clinical trials

On the Relative Efficiency of Model-Assisted Designs: a Conditional Approach.

Comparison of novel phase I clinical trial designs based on toxicity probability intervals

Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

MT-Keyboard: A Bayesian Model-assisted Interval Design to Account for Toxicity Grades and Types for Phase I Trials

Phase I Trial Design for Drug Combinations with Bayesian Model Averaging.

Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.

Gboin: a Unified Model-Assisted Phase I Trial Design Accounting for Toxicity Grades, and Binary or Continuous End Points

A comparison of model-free phase I dose escalation designs for dual-agent combination therapies

Bayesian Dose Finding by Jointly Modelling Toxicity and Efficacy As Time-To-Event Outcomes

An Adaptive Trial Design to Optimize Dose-Schedule Regimes with Delayed Outcomes

Phase I–II Clinical Trial Design: a State-of-the-art Paradigm for Dose Finding

Statistical Tutorial for Using Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) Design for Phase I Single-Agent and Drug-Combination Trials

Time-to-event Model-Assisted Designs for Dose-Finding Trials with Delayed Toxicity

Bayesian Optimal Interval Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

TITE‐BOIN12: A Bayesian Phase I/II Trial Design to Find the Optimal Biological Dose with Late‐onset Toxicity and Efficacy

Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials.

Comparison of design methods for a safety run-in phase of a phase II clinical trial