Uniformly most powerful Bayesian interval design for phase I dose-finding trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 710-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruitao Lin ◽  
Guosheng Yin
2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110015
Author(s):  
Matthew J Schipper ◽  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jeremy MG Taylor ◽  
Randall K Ten Haken ◽  
Christina Tsien ◽  
...  

Introduction: In some phase I trial settings, there is uncertainty in assessing whether a given patient meets the criteria for dose-limiting toxicity. Methods: We present a design which accommodates dose-limiting toxicity outcomes that are assessed with uncertainty for some patients. Our approach could be utilized in many available phase I trial designs, but we focus on the continual reassessment method due to its popularity. We assume that for some patients, instead of the usual binary dose-limiting toxicity outcome, we observe a physician-assessed probability of dose-limiting toxicity specific to a given patient. Data augmentation is used to estimate the posterior probabilities of dose-limiting toxicity at each dose level based on both the fully observed and partially observed patient outcomes. A simulation study is used to assess the performance of the design relative to using the continual reassessment method on the true dose-limiting toxicity outcomes (available in simulation setting only) and relative to simple thresholding approaches. Results: Among the designs utilizing the partially observed outcomes, our proposed design has the best overall performance in terms of probability of selecting correct maximum tolerated dose and number of patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose. Conclusion: Incorporating uncertainty in dose-limiting toxicity assessment can improve the performance of the continual reassessment method design.


Author(s):  
Georgios E. Christakopoulos ◽  
Todd E. DeFor ◽  
Stefanie Hage ◽  
John E. Wagner ◽  
Michael A. Linden ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (14) ◽  
pp. 3683-3691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald W. Northfelt ◽  
Ramesh K. Ramanathan ◽  
Peter A. Cohen ◽  
Daniel D. Von Hoff ◽  
Glen J. Weiss ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. S174-S175
Author(s):  
D. Zingel ◽  
C. Bolling ◽  
T. Graefe ◽  
D. Radtke ◽  
J. Latz ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (24) ◽  
pp. 3194-3213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Hirakawa ◽  
Nolan A. Wages ◽  
Hiroyuki Sato ◽  
Shigeyuki Matsui

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e51039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Le Tourneau ◽  
Hui K. Gan ◽  
Albiruni R. A. Razak ◽  
Xavier Paoletti

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document