Dose-finding Design Research Articles

A Phase I Dose-Finding Design Incorporating Intra-Patient Dose Escalation.

Conventional Phase I trial designs assign a single dose to each patient, necessitating a minimum number of patients per dose to reliably identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). However, in many clinical trials, such as those involving pediatric patients or patients with rare cancers, recruiting an adequate number of patients can pose challenges, limiting the applicability of standard trial designs. To address this challenge, we propose a new Phase I dose-finding design, denoted as IP-CRM, that integrates intra-patient dose escalation with the continual reassessment method (CRM). In the IP-CRM design, intra-patient dose escalation is allowed, guided by both individual patients' toxicity outcomes and accumulated data across patients, and the starting dose for each cohort of patients is adaptively updated. We further extend the IP-CRM design to address carryover effects and/or intra-patient correlations. Due to the potential for each patient to contribute multiple data points at varying doses owing to intra-patient dose escalation, the IP-CRM design offers the advantage of determining the MTD with a considerably reduced sample size compared to standard Phase I dose-finding designs. Simulation studies show that our IP-CRM design can efficiently reduce sample size while concurrently enhancing the probability of identifying the MTD when compared with standard CRM designs and the 3 + 3 design.

Straightforward Phase I Dose-Finding Design for Healthy Volunteers Accounting for Surrogate Activity Biomarkers

Conventionally, a first-in-human phase I trial in healthy volunteers aims to confirm the safety of a drug in humans. In such situations, volunteers should not suffer from any safety issues and simple algorithm-based dose-escalation schemes are often used. However, to avoid too many clinical trials in the future, it might be appealing to design these trials to accumulate information on the link between dose and efficacy/activity under strict safety constraints. Furthermore, an increasing number of molecules for which the increasing dose–activity curve reaches a plateau are emerging. In a phase I dose-finding trial context, our objective is to determine, under safety constraints, among a set of doses, the lowest dose whose probability of activity is closest to a given target. For this purpose, we propose a two-stage dose-finding design. The first stage is a typical algorithm dose escalation phase that can both check the safety of the doses and accumulate activity information. The second stage is a model-based dose-finding phase that involves selecting the best dose–activity model according to the plateau location. Our simulation study shows that our proposed method performs better than the common Bayesian logistic regression model in selecting the optimal dose.

Statistical operating characteristics of current early phase dose finding designs with toxicity and efficacy in oncology

ABSTRACT Traditional phase I dose finding cancer clinical trial designs aim to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the investigational cytotoxic agent based on a single toxicity outcome, assuming a monotone dose-response relationship. However, this assumption might not always hold for newly emerging therapies such as immuno-oncology therapies and molecularly targeted therapies, making conventional dose finding trial designs based on toxicity no longer appropriate. To tackle this issue, numerous early-phase dose finding clinical trial designs have been developed to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD), which takes both toxicity and efficacy outcomes into account. In this article, we review the current model-assisted dose finding designs, BOIN-ET, BOIN12, UBI, TEPI-2, PRINTE, STEIN, and uTPI to identify the OBD and compare their operating characteristics. Extensive simulation studies and a case study using a CAR T-cell therapy phase I trial have been conducted to compare the performance of the aforementioned designs under different possible dose-response relationship scenarios. The simulation results demonstrate that the performance of different designs varies depending on the particular dose-response relationship and the specific metric considered. Based on our simulation results and practical considerations, STEIN, PRINTE, and BOIN12 outperform the other designs from different perspectives.

Dose Individualization for Phase I Cancer Trials With Broadened Eligibility.

Broadening eligibility criteria in cancer trials has been advocated to represent the intended patient population more accurately. The advantages are clear in terms of generalizability and recruitment, however there are some important considerations in terms of design for efficiency and patient safety. While toxicity may be expected to be homogeneous across these subpopulations, designs should be able to recommend safe and precise doses if subpopulations with different toxicity profiles exist. Dose-finding designs accounting for patient heterogeneity have been proposed, but existing methods assume that the source of heterogeneity is known. We propose a broadened eligibility dose-finding design to address the situation of unknown patient heterogeneity in phase I cancer clinical trials where eligibility is expanded, and multiple eligibility criteria could potentially lead to different optimal doses for patient subgroups. The design offers a two-in-one approach to dose-finding by simultaneously selecting patient criteria that differentiate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using stochastic search variable selection, and recommending the subpopulation-specific MTD if needed. Our simulation study compares the proposed design to the naive approach of assuming patient homogeneity and demonstrates favorable operating characteristics across a wide range of scenarios, allocating patients more often to their true MTD during the trial, recommending more than one MTD when needed, and identifying criteria that differentiate the patient population. The proposed design highlights the advantages of adding more variability at an early stage and demonstrates how assuming patient homogeneity can lead to unsafe or sub-therapeutic dose recommendations.

PKBOIN-12: A Bayesian Optimal Interval Phase I/II Design Incorporating Pharmacokinetics Outcomes to Find the Optimal Biological Dose.

Immunotherapies and targeted therapies have gained popularity due to their promising therapeutic effects across multiple treatment areas. The focus of early phase dose-finding clinical trials has shifted from finding the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to identifying the optimal biological dose (OBD), which aims to balance the toxicity and efficacy outcomes, thus optimizing the risk-benefit trade-off. These trials often collect multiple pharmacokinetics (PK) outcomes to assess drug exposure, which has shown correlations with toxicity and efficacy outcomes but has not been utilized in the current dose-finding designs for OBD selection. Moreover, PK outcomes are usually available within days after initial treatment, much faster than toxicity and efficacy outcomes. To bridge this gap, we introduce the innovative model-assisted PKBOIN-12 design, which enhances BOIN12 by integrating PK information into both the dose-finding algorithm and the final OBD determination process. We further extend PKBOIN-12 to TITE-PKBOIN-12 to address the challenges of late-onset toxicity and efficacy outcomes. Simulation results demonstrate that PKBOIN-12 more effectively identifies the OBD and allocates a greater number of patients to it than BOIN12. Additionally, PKBOIN-12 decreases the probability of selecting inefficacious doses as the OBD by excluding those with low drug exposure. Comprehensive simulation studies and sensitivity analysis confirm the robustness of both PKBOIN-12 and TITE-PKBOIN-12 in various scenarios.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I

BackgroundAdaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community.MethodsPublished studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical s (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein.ResultsOut of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials.ConclusionThis review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials.Study protocol registrationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7.

Dose Finding in Oncology Trials Guided by Ordinal Toxicity Grades Using Continuous Dose Levels.

We present a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding in oncology trials with application to a first-in-human trial. The design is based on the escalation with overdose control principle and uses an intermediate grade 2 toxicity in addition to the traditional binary indicator of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to guide the dose escalation and de-escalation. We model the dose-toxicity relationship using the proportional odds model. This assumption satisfies an important ethical concern when a potentially toxic drug is first introduced in the clinic; if a patient experiences grade 2 toxicity at the most, then the amount of dose escalation is lower relative to that wherein if this patient experienced a maximum of grade 1 toxicity. This results in a more careful dose escalation. The performance of the design was assessed by deriving the operating characteristics under several scenarios for the true MTD and expected proportions of grade 2 toxicities. In general, the trial design is safe and achieves acceptable efficiency of the estimated MTD for a planned sample size of twenty patients. At the time of writing this manuscript, twelve patients have been enrolled to the trial.

A Personalized Dose-Finding Algorithm Based on Adaptive Gaussian Process Regression.

Dose-finding studies play a crucial role in drug development by identifying the optimal dose(s) for later studies while considering tolerability. This not only saves time and effort in proceeding with Phase III trials but also improves efficacy. In an era of precision medicine, it is not ideal to assume patient homogeneity in dose-finding studies as patients may respond differently to the drug. To address this, we propose a personalized dose-finding algorithm that assigns patients to individualized optimal biological doses. Our design follows a two-stage approach. Initially, patients are enrolled under broad eligibility criteria. Based on the Stage 1 data, we fit a regression model of toxicity and efficacy outcomes on dose and biomarkers to characterize treatment-sensitive patients. In the second stage, we restrict the trial population to sensitive patients, apply a personalized dose allocation algorithm, and choose the recommended dose at the end of the trial. Simulation study shows that the proposed design reliably enriches the trial population, minimizes the number of failures, and yields superior operating characteristics compared to several existing dose-finding designs in terms of both the percentage of correct selection and the number of patients treated at target dose(s).

T3 + 3: 3 + 3 Design With Delayed Outcomes.

Delayed outcome is common in phase I oncology clinical trials. It causes logistic difficulty, wastes resources, and prolongs the trial duration. This article investigates this issue and proposes the time-to-event 3 + 3 (T3 + 3) design, which utilizes the actual follow-up time for at-risk patients with pending toxicity outcomes. The T3 + 3 design allows continuous accrual without unnecessary trial suspension and is costless and implementable with pretabulated dose decision rules. Besides, the T3 + 3 design uses the isotonic regression to estimate the toxicity rates across dose levels and therefore can accommodate for any targeted toxicity rate for maximum tolerated dose (MTD). It dramatically facilitates the trial preparation and conduct without intensive computation and statistical consultation. The extension to other algorithm-based phase I dose-finding designs (e.g., i3 + 3 design) is also studied. Comprehensive computer simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of the T3 + 3 design under various dose-toxicity scenarios. The results confirm that the T3 + 3 design substantially shortens the trial duration compared with the conventional 3 + 3 design and yields much higher accuracy in MTD identification than the rolling six design. In summary, the T3 + 3 design addresses the delayed outcome issue while keeping the desirable features of the 3 + 3 design, such as simplicity, transparency, and costless implementation. It has great potential to accelerate early-phase drug development.

Pharmacometrics-Enabled DOse OPtimization (PEDOOP) for seamless phase I-II trials in oncology

ABSTRACT We consider a dose-optimization design for a first-in-human oncology trial that aims to identify a suitable dose for late-phase drug development. The proposed approach, called the Pharmacometrics-Enabled DOse OPtimization (PEDOOP) design, incorporates observed patient-level pharmacokinetics (PK) measurements and latent pharmacodynamics (PD) information for trial decision-making and dose optimization. PEDOOP consists of two seamless phases. In phase I, patient-level time-course drug concentrations, derived PD effects, and the toxicity outcomes from patients are integrated into a statistical model to estimate the dose-toxicity response. A simple dose-finding design guides dose escalation in phase I. At the end of the phase I dose finding, a graduation rule is used to assess the safety and efficacy of all the doses and select those with promising efficacy and acceptable safety for a randomized comparison against a control arm in phase II. In phase II, patients are randomized to the selected doses based on a fixed or adaptive randomization ratio. At the end of phase II, an optimal biological dose (OBD) is selected for late-phase development. We conduct simulation studies to assess the PEDOOP design in comparison to an existing seamless design that also combines phases I and II in a single trial.

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials

BackgroundFaced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting.ResultsOur survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting.ConclusionAdaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Analysis on efficacy of magnetic resonance lymphangiography using INV-001 in healthy beagle dogs

We aimed to conduct a proof-of-concept study of INV-001 in visualizing lymphatic vessels and nodes without venous contamination and to determine the optimal dose condition of INV-001 for magnetic resonance lymphangiography (MRL) in healthy beagles. MRL was performed using a 3.0-Tesla (T) whole body clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. A dose-finding study of INV-001 for MRL in beagles (N = 6) was carried out according to an adaptive optimal dose finding design. For the reproducibility study (N = 6), MRL was conducted at selected INV-001 doses (0.056 and 0.112 mg Fe/kg) with a 15 mM concentration. Additionally, an excretion study (N = 3) of INV-001 was conducted by analyzing T1, T2, and T2* maps of the liver and kidney 48 h post-administration. INV-001 administration at doses of 0.056 and 0.112 mg Fe/kg (concentration: 15 mM) consistently demonstrated the visualization of contrast-enhanced lymphatic vessels and nodes without venous contamination in the beagles. The contrast enhancement effect was highest at 30 min after INV-001 administration, then gradually decreasing. No toxicity-related issues were identified during the study. After 48 h, the T1, T2, and T2* values in the liver and both kidneys were found to be comparable to the pre-administration values, indicating thorough INV-001 excretion. The optimal dosing conditions of INV-001 for MRL for contrast-enhanced visualization of lymphatic vessels and nodes exclusively with no venous contamination in beagles was determined to be 0.056 mg Fe/kg with a 15 mM concentration.

Statistical Frameworks for Oncology Dose-Finding Designs with Late-Onset Toxicities: A Review

Statistical Frameworks for Oncology Dose-Finding Designs with Late-Onset Toxicities: A Review

Current issues in dose-finding designs: A response to the US Food and Drug Adminstration's Oncology Center of Excellence Project Optimus.

With the advent of targeted agents and immunological therapies, the medical research community has become increasingly aware that conventional methods for determining the best dose or schedule of a new agent are inadequate. It has been well established that conventional phase I designs cannot reliably identify safe and effective doses. This problem applies, generally, for cytotoxic agents, radiation therapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapies. To address this, the US Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus, with the goal "to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development." As a response to Project Optimus, the articles in this special issue of Clinical Trials review recent advances in methods for choosing the dose or schedule of a new agent with an overall objective of informing clinical trialists of these innovative designs. This introductory article briefly reviews problems with conventional methods, the regulatory changes that encourage better dose optimization designs, and provides brief summaries of the articles that follow in this special issue.

DOD-Combo: Bayesian dose finding design in combination trials with meta-analytic-predictive prior

ABSTRACT Combination therapy, a treatment modality that involves multiple treatment agents, has become imperative for improving treatment effectiveness and addressing resistance in the field of oncology. However, determining the most effective dose for these combinations, particularly when dealing with intricate drug interactions and diverse toxicity patterns, presents a substantial challenge. This paper introduces a novel Bayesian dose-finding design for combination therapies with information borrowing, named the DOD-Combo design. Leveraging historical single-agent trials and the meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) power prior, our approach utilizes a copula-type model to connect individual drug priors with joint toxicity probabilities in combination treatments. The MAP power prior allows the integration of information from multiple historical trials, constructing informative priors for each agent. Extensive simulations confirm our method’s superior performance compared to combination designs with no information borrowing. By adaptively incorporating historical data, our approach reduces sample sizes and enhances efficiency in selecting the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), effectively addressing the intricate challenges presented by combination trials.

A systematic survey of adaptive trials shows substantial improvement in methods is needed

ObjectivesTo investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials. Study Design and SettingWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials. ResultsWe included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n = 29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n = 71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n = 35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n = 26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n = 55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n = 19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n = 15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n = 7, 12.7%; ADFD: n = 8, 27.6%; ARD: n = 7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n = 7, 100.0%; ADFD: n = 7, 87.5%; ARD: n = 5, 71.4%). More than half (n = 76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n = 86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n = 22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future. ConclusionSubstantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations from both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.

Up-and-Down: The Most Popular, Most Reliable, and Most Overlooked Dose-Finding Design

Up-and-Down designs (UDDs) are ubiquitous for dose-finding in a wide variety of scientific, engineering, and clinical fields. They are defined by a few simple rules that generate a random walk around the target percentile. UDDs’ combination of robust, tractable behavior, straightforward usage, and good dose-finding performance, has won the trust of practitioners and their consulting analysts across fields and continents. In contrast, in recent decades the statistical dose-finding design field has turned a cold shoulder towards UDDs, and it is quite possible that many younger dose-finding methods researchers are not even aware of this design approach. We present a concise overview of UDDs and their current state-of-the-art methodology, with references for further inquiry. We also revisit the performance comparison between UDDs and novel, more complicated design approaches such as the Continual Reassessment Method and the Bayesian Optimal Interval design, which we group under the term “Aim-for-Target” designs. UDDs fare very well in the comparison, particularly in terms of robustness to sources of variability.

An extended Bayesian semi-mechanistic dose-finding design for phase I oncology trials using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information.

We propose a model-based, semi-mechanistic dose-finding (SDF) design for phase I oncology trials that incorporates pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) information when modeling the dose-toxicity relationship. This design is motivated by a phase Ib/II clinical trial of anti-CD20/CD3 T cell therapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; it extends a recently proposed SDF model framework by incorporating measurements of a PD biomarker relevant to the primary dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). We propose joint Bayesian modeling of the PK, PD, and DLT outcomes. Our extensive simulation studies show that on average the proposed design outperforms some common phase I trial designs, including modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) and Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) designs, the continual reassessment method (CRM), as well as an SDF design assuming a latent PD biomarker (SDF-woPD), in terms of the percentage of correct selection of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and average number of patients allocated to MTD, under a variety of dose-toxicity scenarios. When the working PK model and the class of link function between the cumulative PD effect and DLT probability is correctly specified, the proposed design also yields better estimated dose-toxicity curves than CRM and SDF-woPD. Our sensitivity analyses suggest that the design's performance is reasonably robust to prior specification for the parameter in the link function, as well as misspecification of the PK model and class of the link function.

Model-Assisted Bayesian Designs for Dose Finding and Optimization

Model-Assisted Bayesian Designs for Dose Finding and Optimization

A flexible dose-response modeling framework based on continuous toxicity outcomes in phase I cancer clinical trials

BackgroundThe past few decades have seen remarkable developments in dose-finding designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. While many of these designs rely on a binary toxicity response, there is an increasing focus on leveraging continuous toxicity responses. A continuous toxicity response pertains to a quantitative measure represented by real numbers. A higher value corresponds not only to an elevated likelihood of side effects for patients but also to an increased probability of treatment efficacy. This relationship between toxicity and dose is often nonlinear, necessitating flexibility in the quest to find an optimal dose.MethodsA flexible, fully Bayesian dose-finding design is proposed to capitalize on continuous toxicity information, operating under the assumption that the true shape of the dose-toxicity curve is nonlinear.ResultsWe conduct simulations of clinical trials across varying scenarios of non-linearity to evaluate the operational characteristics of the proposed design. Additionally, we apply the proposed design to a real-world problem to determine an optimal dose for a molecularly targeted agent.ConclusionsPhase I cancer clinical trials, designed within a fully Bayesian framework with the utilization of continuous toxicity outcomes, offer an alternative approach to finding an optimal dose, providing unique benefits compared to trials designed based on binary toxicity outcomes.