Discrete event simulation applied to pediatric phase I oncology designs

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 84, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 729-733

  Barrett, J S ^a,b   Skolnik, J M ^a,b   Jayaraman, B ^a,b   Patel, D ^a,b   Adamson, P C ^a,b  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER SURVIVAL; CHILD; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SELECTION; PEDIATRICS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 56749133308     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2008.193     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Walterhouse, D. & Watson, A. Optimal management strategies for rhabdomyosarcoma in children. Paediatr. Drugs 9, 391-400 (2007).
2. Krailo, M.D., Bernstein, L., Sullivan-Halley, J. & Hammond, G.D. Patterns of enrollment on cooperative group studies. An analysis of trends from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. Cancer 71, 3325-3330 (1993).
3. Kim, A. et al. Characteristics and outcome of pediatric patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials. Oncologist 13, 679-689 (2008).
4. Shaw, P.H. & Ritchey, A.K. Different rates of clinical trial enrollment between adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 22 years old and children under 15 years old with cancer at a children's hospital. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 29, 811-814 (2007).
5. Adamson, P.C. & Blaney, S.M. New approaches to drug development in pediatric oncology. Cancer J. 11, 324-330 (2005).
6. Koyfman, S.A. et al. Risks and benefits associated with novel phase 1 oncology trial designs. Cancer 110, 1115-1124 (2007).
7. Girard, P. Clinical trial simulation: a tool for understanding study failures and preventing them. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 96, 228-234 (2005).
8. O'Quigley, J. Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics 3, 87-99 (2002).
9. Meille, C., Gentet, J.C., Barbolosi, D., Andre, N., Doz, F. & Iliadis, A. New adaptive method for phase I trials in oncology. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83, 873-881 (2008).
10. Rubnitz, J.E., Gibson, B. & Smith, F.O. Acute myeloid leukemia. Pediatr. Clin. North Am. 55, 21-51, ix (2008).
11. Lee, D.P., Skolnik, J.M. & Adamson, P.C. Pediatric phase I trials in oncology: an analysis of study conduct efficiency. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 8431-8441 (2005).
12. Skolnik, J.M., Barrett, J.S., Jayaraman, B., Patel, D. & Adamson, P.C. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 190-195 (2008).
13. Fryback, D.G., Stout, N.K., Rosenberg, M.A., Trentham-Dietz, A., Kuruchittham, V. & Remington, P.L. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 37-47 (2006).
14. Le Lay, A., Despiegel, N., Francois, C. & Duru, G. Can discrete event simulation be of use in modelling major depression? Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 4, 19 (2006).
15. Hupert, N., Mushlin, A.I. & Callahan, M.A. Modeling the public health response to bioterrorism: using discrete event simulation to design antibiotic distribution centers. Med. Decis. Making 22 (5 suppl.),S17-S25 (2002).
16. Shechter, S.M. et al. A clinically based discrete-event simulation of end-stage liver disease and the organ allocation process. Med. Decis. Making 25, 199-209 (2005).
17. Look, A.T., Schriber, T.J., Nawrocki, J.F. & Murphy, W.H. Computer simulation of the cellular immune response to malignant lymphoid cells: logic of approach, model design and laboratory verification. Immunology 43, 677-690 (1981).
18. Zand, M.S., Briggs, B.J., Bose, A. & Vo, T. Discrete event modeling of CD4+ memory T cell generation. J. Immunol. 173, 3763-3772 (2004).
19. Barrett, J.S., Jayaraman, B., Patel, D. & Skolnik, J.M. A SAS-based solution to evaluate study design efficiency of phase I pediatric oncology trials via discrete event simulation. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 90, 240-250 (2008).
20. Heyd, J.M. & Carlin, B.P. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med. 18, 1307-1321 (1999).
21. Babad, H., Sanderson, C., Naidoo, B., White, I. & Wang, D. The development of a simulation model of primary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease. Health Care Manag. Sci. 5, 269-274 (2002).
22. Williamson, P.R., Smith, C.T., Hutton, J.L. & Marson, A.G. Aggregate data meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Stat. Med. 21, 3337-3351 (2002).
23. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Innovation and stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medicinal products. US Food and Drug Administration (2004).
24. Yeager, N.D., Hoshaw-Woodard, S., Ruymann, F.B. & Termuhlen, A. Patterns of care among adolescents with malignancy in Ohio. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 28, 17-22 (2006).
25. Thall, P.F. & Estey, E.H. Some ethical issues in phase II trials in acute leukemia. Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 3, 943-948 (2005).