Escalation, group and A + B designs for dose-finding trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue 21, 2006, Pages 3668-3678

  Ivanova, Anastasia ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

A + B design; Dose finding studies; Maximally tolerated dose; Ordinal toxicity outcome; Phase I trial; Up and down design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE CALCULATION; DRUG RESEARCH; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MIGRAINE; OPTIMAL DRUG DOSE; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 33750335213     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2470     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Dixon WJ, Mood AM. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1954; 43:109-126.
2. Tsutakawa RK. Random walk design in bio-assay. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1967; 62:842-856.
3. Wetherill GB, Glazebrook KD. Sequential Methods in Statistics. Chapman and Hall: London, New York, 1986.
4. Storer BE. Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45:925-937.
5. Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, Rubinstein LV, Christian MC, Simon RM. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:1799-1806.
6. Lin Y, Shih WJ. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics 2001; 2:203-215.
7. Gezmu M, Flournoy N. Group up-and-down designs for dose finding. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2006, in press.
8. Ivanova A. Zoom-in designs for dose-finding in oncology. UNC Technical Report 04-03, 2004.
9. Ivanova A, Haghighi AM, Mohanti SG, Durham SD. Improved up-and-down designs for phase I trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:69-82.
10. Rosenberger WF, Haines LM. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:2757 2770.
11. Uhlmann W. Verleich der hypergeometrischen mit der Binomial-Verteilung. Metrika 1966; 10:145-158.
12. Stylianou M, Flournoy N. Dose-finding using the biased coin up-and-down design and isotonic regression. Biometrics 2002; 58:171-177.
13. Reiner E, Paoletti X, O'Quigley J. Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 1999; 30:303-315.
14. Kang SH, Ahn C. The expected toxicity rate at the maximum tolerated dose in the standard phase I cancer clinical trial design. Drug Information Journal 2001; 35(4):1189-1200.
15. Kang SH, Ahn C. An investigation of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 2002; 36:865-873.
16. Bekele BN, Thall FT. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. Journal of American Statistical Association 2004; 99:26-35.
17. Paul RK, Rosenberger WF, Flournoy N. Quantile estimation following non-parametric phase I clinical trials with ordinal response. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:2483-2495.
18. Ivanova A. A new dose-finding design for bivariate outcomes. Biometrics 2003; 59:1003-1009.
19. 6-benzylguanine for patients undergoing surgery for malignant glioma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1998; 16:3570-3575.