Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 89, Issue 15, 1997, Pages 1138-1147

  Simon, Richard ^a,d   Freidlin, Boris ^b   Rubinstein, Larry ^a   Arbuck, Susan G ^a   Collins, Jerry ^c   Christian, Michaele C ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b EMMES CORPORATION   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; DOSE CALCULATION; DRUG RESEARCH; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; TITRIMETRY;

EID: 0030749549     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/89.15.1138     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1637-43.
2. Estey E, Hoth D, Simon R, Marsoni S, Leyland-Jones B, Wittes R. Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1986;70:1105-15.
3. Collins JM, Zaharko DS, Dedrick RL, Chabner BA. Potential roles for preclinical pharmacology in phase I clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70:73-80.
4. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45:925-37.
5. Eichhorn BH, Zacks S. Sequential search for an optimal dosage. J Am Stat Assoc 1973;68:594-8.
6. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990;46:33-48.
7. Faries D. The modified continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. American Statistical Association 1991 Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association, 1991;269-73.
8. Goodman SN, Zuhurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1995;14: 1149-61.
9. Moller S. An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients. in order to investigate a greater range of doses. Stat Med 1995;14: 911-22.
10. Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med 1996;15:1605-18.
11. Mick R, Ratain MJ. Model-guided determination of maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials: evidence for increased precision. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:217-23.
12. Sheiner LB, Beal SL, Sambol NC. Study designs for dose-ranging. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989;46:63-77.
13. Sheiner LB, Hashimoto Y, Beal SL. A simulation study comparing designs for dose ranging. Stat Med 1991;10:303-21.
14. Chuang C. The analysis of a titration study. Stat Med 1987;6:583-90.
15. Shih WJ, Could AL, Hwang IK. The analysis of titration studies in phase III clinical trials. Stat Med 1989;8:583-91.
16. Chou TC, Talalay P. Generalized equations for the analysis of inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten and higher-order kinetic systems with two or more mutually exclusive and nonexclusive inhibitors. Eur J Biochem 1981;115: 207-16.
17. Benet L, Oie S, Schwartz J. Design and optimization of dosage regimens; pharmacokinetic data. In: Hardman J, Limbird L, Molinoff P, et al., editors. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996: 1707-92.
18. Mick R, Lane N, Daugherty C, Ratain MJ. Physician-determined patient risk of toxic effects: impact on enrollment and decision making in phase I cancer trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1685-93.