Choice of designs and doses for early phase trials

Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 373-378

  Zhou, Yinghui ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dose escalation; First into man; Statistical designs

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BAYES THEOREM; BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIDE EFFECT; VOLUNTEER;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; NEOPLASMS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 2942514436     PISSN: 07673981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00226.x     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Schneiderman M.A. Mouse to man: statistical problems in bringing a drug to clinical trial. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical and Statistical Probability, 4th edn, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1967. pp. 855-866.
2. 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.
3. Whitehead J., Brunier H. Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Stat. Med. (1995) 14 885-893.
4. World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment, WHO Offset Publication No. 48, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1979.
5. Carter S.K. Study design principles for the clinical evaluation of new drugs as developed by the chemotherapy programme of the National Cancer Institute, in: Staquet M.J. (Ed.), The design of clinical trials in cancer therapy, Editions Scientifique Europe, Brussels, 1973. pp. 242-289.
6. Lin Y., Shih W.J. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics (2001) 2 203-215.
7. Reiner E., Paoletti X., O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. (1999) 30 303-315.
8. Lindley D.V. Making decisions, Wiley, London, 1971.
9. Smith J.Q. Decision analysis: a Bayesian approach, Chapman & Hall, London, 1988.
10. Korn E.L., Midthune D., Chen T.T., Rubinstein L.V., Christian M.C., Simon R.M. A comparison of two phase I designs. Stat. Med. (1994) 13 1799-1806.
11. Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Stat. (1994) 4 147-164.
12. Goodman S.N., Zahurak M.L., Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med. (1995) 14 1149-1161.
13. Møller 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) 14 911-922.
14. O'Quigley J., Shen L.Z. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics (1996) 52 673-684.
15. Gasparini M., Eisele J. A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics (2000) 56 609-615.
16. O'Quigley J. Curve-free and model-based continual reassessment method designs. Biometrics (2002) 58 245-249.
17. O'Quigley J., Reiner E. A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method, Biometrika (1998) 85 741-748.
18. Heyd J.M., Carlin B.P. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med. (1999) 18 1307-1321.
19. Zohar S., Chevret S. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Stat. Med. (2001) 20 2827-2843.
20. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial design. Stat. Med. (1998) 17 1537-1549.
21. Whitehead J. Bayesian decision procedures with application to dose-finding studies. Int. J. Pharm. Med. (1997) 11 201-208.
22. Whitehead J., Williamson D. An evaluation of Bayesian decision procedures for dose-finding studies. J. Biopharm. Med. (1998) 8 445-467.
23. Wang O., Faries D.E. A two-stage dose selection strategy in phase I trials with wide dose ranges. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2000) 10 319-333.
24. Zhou Y., Whitehead J. Practical implementation of Bayesian dose-escalation procedures. Drug Inform. J. (2003) 37 45-59.
25. Zhou Y., Whitehead J. Bayesian ADEPT: operating manual, The University of Reading, Reading, UK, 2002.
26. Babb J., Rogatko A., Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat. Med. (1998) 17 1103-1120.
27. Dixon W.J., Mood A.M. A method for obtaining an analysing sensitivity data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. (1948) 43 109-126.
28. Storer B.E. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics (1989) 45 925-937.
29. Durham S.D., Flournoy N., Rosenberger W.F. A random walk rule for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics (1997) 53 745-760.
30. Leung D.H., Wang Y. Isotonic designs for phase I trials. Control. Clin. Trials (2001) 22 126-138.
31. Patterson S., Francis S., Ireson M., Webber D., Whitehead J. A novel Bayesian decision procedure for early-phase dose finding studies. J. Biopharm. Stat. (1999) 9 583-597.
32. Whitehead J., Zhou Y., Patterson S., Webber D., Francis S. Easy-to-implement Bayesian methods for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers. Biostatistics (2001) 2 47-61.
33. Gooley T.A., Martin P.J. Simulation as a design tool for phase I/II clinical trials: an example from bone-marrow transplantation. Control. Clin. Trials (1994) 15 450-462.
34. Thall P.F., Russell K.E. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics (1998) 54 251-264.
35. O'Quigley J., Hughes M.D., Fenton T. Dose-finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics (2001) 57 1018-1029.
36. Braun T.M. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control. Clin. Trials (2002) 23 240-256.
37. Girard P., Laporte-Simitsidis S., Mismetti P., Decousus H. Influence of confounding factors on designs for dose-effect relationship estimates. Stat. Med. (1995) 14 987-1005.