Dose-schedule finding in phase I/II clinical trials using a Bayesian isotonic transformation

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 24, 2008, Pages 4895-4913

  Li, Yisheng ^a   Bekele, B Nebiyou ^a   Ji, Yuan ^a   Cook, John D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian adaptive design; Efficacy; Matrix order; Minimum lower sets algorithm; Partial order; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR;

ACUTE LEUKEMIA; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME; PROBABILITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG ADMINISTRATION; DRUG TOXICITY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL;

ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; DRUG TOXICITY; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 59849118019     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3329     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Thall PF, Russell KE. 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.
2. Ivanova A. A new dose-finding design for bivariate outcomes. Biometrics 2003; 59:1001-1007. DOI: 10.1111/ j.0006-341X.2003.00115.x.
3. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on toxicity-efficacy trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60:684-693. DOI: 10.1111/ j.0006-341X.2004.00218.x.
4. Bekele BN, Shen Y. A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics 2005; 61:343-354. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1541-0420.2005.00314.x.
5. Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 2006; 62:777-787. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00534.x.
6. Braun TM, Yuan Z, Thall PF. Determining a maximum-tolerated schedule of a cytotoxic agent. Biometrics 2005; 61:335-343. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00312.x.
7. Braun TM, Thall PF, Nguyen H, de Lima M. Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clinical Trials 2007; 4:113-124. DOI: 10.1177/1740774507076934.
8. Conaway MR, Dunbar S, Peddada SD. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials. Biometrics 2004; 60:661-669. DOI: 10.1111/ j.0006-341X.2004.00215.x.
9. Dunson DB, Neelon B. Bayesian inference on order-constrained parameters in generalized linear models. Biometrics 2003; 59:286-295. DOI: 10.1111/1541-0420.00035.
10. Stylianou M, Proschan M, Flournoy N. Estimating the probability of toxicity at the target dose following an up-and-down design. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:535-543. DOI: 10.1002/ sim.1351.
11. O'Quigley J, Shen J, Gamst A. Two-sample continual reassessment method. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1999; 9:17-44. DOI: 10.1081/BIP-100100998.
12. O'Quigley J, Paoletti X. Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 2003; 59:430-440. DOI: 10.1111/ 1541-0420.00050.
13. Ivanova A, Wang K. Bivariate isotonic design for dose-finding with ordered groups. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:2018-2026. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2312.
14. Dale JR. Global cross-ratio models for bivariate, discrete, ordered responses. Biometrics 1986; 42:909-917.
15. Robertson T, Wright FT, Dykstra RL. Order Restricted Statistical Inference. Wiley: New York, 1988; 12-26.
16. Gilks WR, Best NG, Tan KKC. Adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling within Gibbs sampling. Applied Statistics 1995; 44:455-472.
17. Emmenegger U, Kerbel RS. A dynamic de-escalating dosing strategy to determine the optimal biological dose for antiangiogenic drugs (commentary on Dowlati et al., p. 7938). Clinical Cancer Research 2005; 11:7589-7592. DOI: 10.1158/ 1078-0432.CCR-05-1387.
18. Shaked Y, Bocci G, Munoz R, Man S, Ebos JM, Hicklin DJ, Bertolini F, D'Amato R, Kerbel RS. Cellular and molecular surrogate markers to monitor targeted and non-targeted antiangiogenic drug activity and determine optimal biologic dose. Current Cancer Drug Targets 2005; 5:551-559. DOI: 10.2174/156800905774574020.
19. Issa J-PJ, Guillermo G-M, Giles FJ, Mannari R, Thomas D, Faderl S, Bayar E, Lyons J, Rosenfeld CS, Cortes J, Kantarjian HM. Phase I study of low-dose prolonged exposure schedules of the hypomethylating agent 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (decitabine) in hematopoietic malignancies. Blood 2004; 103:1635-1640. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2003-03-0687.
20. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 59:591-600.
21. Thall PF, Lee S-J. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2003; 13:251-261. DOI: 10.1046/ j.1525-1438.2003.13202.x.
22. Hans C, Dunson DB. Bayesian inferences on umbrella orderings. Biometrics 2005; 61:1018-1026. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1541-0420.2005.00373.x.