Range and trend of expected toxicity level (ETL) in standard A + B designs: A report from the children's oncology group

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 123-128

  Chen, Zhengjia ^a,b   Krailo, Mark D ^a,b   Sun, Junfeng ^c   Azen, Stanley P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CHILDREN S ONCOLOGY GROUP   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Expected toxicity level; Maximum tolerated dose; Phase I design; Simulation; Targeted toxicity level; Traditional algorithm based design

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; SIMULATION; TOXICITY TESTING; AGE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHILD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; NEOPLASMS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); TOXICITY;

AGE FACTORS; ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

EID: 60249085300     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Storer B. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45 (1989) 925-937
2. Gorden N., and Willson J. Using toxicity grades in the design and analysis of cancer phase I clinical trials. Stat Med 11 (1992) 2063-2075
3. Mick R. Phase I clinical trial design. In: Schilsky R., Milano G., and Ratain M. (Eds). Principles of Antineoplastic Drug Development and Pharmacology (1996), Marcel Dekker, New York, NY 29-36
4. Kang S., and Ahn C. The expected toxicity rate at the maximum tolerated dose in the standard phase I cancer clinical trial design. Drug Inf J 35 (2001) 1189-1199
5. Kang S., and Ahn C. An investigation of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Drug Inf J 36 (2002) 865-873
6. He W., Liu J., Binkowitz B., and Quan H. A model-based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 25 12 (2006) 2027-2042
7. Lin Y., and Shih W.J. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics 2 2 (2001) 203-215
8. Rosenberger W.F., and Haines L.M. Competing designs for Phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med 21 (2002) 2757-2770
9. O'Quigley J., Pepe M., and Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46 (1990) 33-48
10. Shen L.Z., and O'Quigley J. Consistency of the continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometrika 83 (1996) 395-406
11. Durham S.D., and Flournoy N. Random walks for quantile estimation. In: Gupta S.S., and Berger J.O. (Eds). Statistical Decision Theory and Related Topics (1994), Springer, New York 467-476
12. Durham S.D., Flournoy N., and Rosenberger W.F. A random walk rule for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 53 (1997) 745-760
13. Whitehead J., and Brunier H. Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Stat Med 14 (1995) 885-893
14. Whitehead J. Bayesian decision procedures with application to dose-finding studies. Int J Pharm Med 11 (1997) 201-208
15. Babb J., Rogatko A., and Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: e_cient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 17 (1998) 1103-1120
16. Leung D.H.Y., and Wang Y.G. Isotonic designs for Phase I trials. Control Clinical Trials 22 (2001) 126-138
17. Potter D. Phase I studies of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer patients: a review of the designs. J Biopharm Stat 16 (2006) 579-604
18. Smith T., Lee J., Kantarjian H., Legha S., and Raber M. Design and results of a phase I cancer clinical trial: three-year experience at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 14 1 (1996) 287-295
19. Korn E.L., Midthune D., Chen T.T., Rubinstein L.V., Christian M.C., and Simon R.M. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med 13 (1994) 1799-1806