Abstract
Simulation studies have shown that novel designs such as the continual reassessment method and the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design outperform the 3 + 3 design by recommending the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more often, using less patients, and allotting more patients to the MTD. However, it is not clear whether these novel designs would have yielded different results in the context of real-world dose-finding trials. This is a commonly mentioned reason for the continuous use of 3 + 3 designs for oncology trials, with investigators considering simulation studies not sufficiently convincing to warrant the additional design complexity of novel designs. METHODS: We randomly sampled 60 published dose-finding trials to obtain 22 that used the 3 + 3 design, identified an MTD, published toxicity data, and had more than two dose levels. We compared the published MTD with the estimated MTD using the continual reassessment method and BOIN using target toxicity rates of 25% and 30% and toxicity data from the trial. Moreover, we compared patient allocation and sample size assuming that these novel designs had been implemented. RESULTS: Model-based designs chose dose levels higher than the published MTD in about 40% of the trials, with estimated and observed toxicity rates closer to the target toxicity rates of 25% and 30%. They also assigned less patients to suboptimal doses and permitted faster dose escalation. CONCLUSION: This study using published dose-finding trials shows that novel designs would recommend different MTDs and confirms the advantages of these designs compared with the 3 + 3 design, which were demonstrated by simulation studies.