Dose-finding in phase I clinical trials based on toxicity probability intervals

Clinical Trials

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 235-244

  Ji, Yuan ^a   Li, Yisheng ^a   Bekele, B Nebiyou ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; LYMPHOMA; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY SAMPLE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOXICITY TESTING;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BAYES THEOREM; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG DOSAGE CALCULATIONS; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROBABILITY; PROTEIN-TYROSINE KINASES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 34548619360     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774507079442     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46: 33-48.
2. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with over dose control. Stat Med 1998; 17: 1103-20.
3. Gasparini M, Eisele J. A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 2000; 56: 609-15.
4. Stylianou M, Flournoy N. Dose finding using the biased coin up-and-down design and isotonic regression. Biometrics 2002; 58: 171-7.
5. Haines L, Perevozskaya I, Rosenberger W. Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 2003; 59: 591-600.
6. Thall P, Lee S. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13(3): 251-61.
7. Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometris 2006; 62: 777-87.
8. Zhu M, Lu A. The counter-intuitive non-informative prior for the Bernoulli family. J Stat Educ 2004; 12(2): 1-10.
9. Robertson T, Wright F, Dykstra R. Order Restricted Statistical Inference, Wiley, New York, 1988.
10. Goodman S, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med 1995; 14: 1149-61.
11. Shen L, O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometriha 1996; 83: 395-405.
12. Piantadosi S, Fisher J, Grossman S. Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose finding trials. Cancer Chemotherapy Pharm 1998; 41(6): 429-36.
13. Bekele B, Thall P. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. J Am Stat Assoc 2004; 60: 684-93.
14. Braun T, Yuan Z, Thall P. Determining a maximum-tolerated schedule of a cytotoxic agent. Biometrics 2005; 61: 335-43.
15. Rosenberger W, Haines L. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2757-70.