Trends in the application of dynamic allocation methods in multi-arm cancer clinical trials

Clinical Trials

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 227-234

  Pond, Gregory R ^a   Tang, Patricia A ^b   Welch, Stephen A ^c   Chen, Eric X ^d  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b TOM BAKER CANCER CENTRE   (Canada)

^c LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^d PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DYNAMIC ALLOCATION; FUNDING; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; STUDY DESIGN; TREND STUDY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROGNOSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 77952769492     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774510368301     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Taves DR Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974 ; 15: 443-453.
2. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975 ; 31: 103-115.
3. Atkinson AC The comparison of designs for sequential clinical trials with covariate information. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2002 ; 165: 349-373.
4. Begg CB, Iglewicz B. A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 1990 ; 36: 81-90.
5. Heritier S., Gebski V., Pillai A. Dynamic balancing randomization in controlled clinical trials. Stat Med 2005 ; 24: 3729-3741.
6. Hofmeijer J., Anema PC, van der Tweel I. New algorithm for treatment allocation reduced selection bias and loss of power in small trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008 ; 61: 119-124.
7. Peto R., Pike MC, Armitage P., et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer 1976 ; 34: 585-612.
8. Senn SJ Fishers game with the devil. Stat Med 1994 ; 13: 217-230.
9. Senn SJ Consensus and controversy in pharmaceutical statistics (with discussion). Statistician 2000 ; 49: 135-176.
10. Senn S. Unbalanced claims for balance. Appl Clin Trials 2004 ; 13: 14-15.
11. Atkinson AC Faulty assumptions in Atkinsons criteria for clinical trial design. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2004 ; 167: 180-181.
12. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. CPMP/ EWP/2863/99, 2003. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/286399en.pdf (accessed 7 January 2009 ).
13. Day S., Grouin J. -M, Lewis JA Achieving balance in clinical trials: to say the guidance does not cite any references to support its view is an irrelevant argument. Appl Clin Trials 2005 ; 14: 24.
14. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM Randomisation in Clinical Trials. Theory and Practice. Wiley, New York, 2002.
15. Buyse M., McEntegart DJ Achieving balance in clinical trials: an unbalanced view from the European regulators. Appl Clin Trials 2004 ; 13: 36-40.
16. Taves DR Faulty assumptions in Atkinsons criteria for clinical trial design. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2004 ; 167: 179-180.
17. Treasure T., MacRae K. Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? (randomisation doesnt guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does.). Br Med J 1998 ; 317: 362-363.
18. Zelen M. Play the winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc 1969 ; 64: 131-146.
19. Wei LJ, Durham S. The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1978 ; 73: 840-843.
20. Zhou X., Liu S., Kim ES, et al. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer - a step toward personalized medicine. Clin Trials 2008 ; 5: 181-193.
21. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J Am Med Assoc 2006 ; 295: 90-93.
22. Altman DG, Dore CJ Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990 ; 335: 149-153.
23. Lee JJ, Feng L. Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. J Clin Oncol 2005 ; 23: 4450-4457.
24. Tu D., Shalay K., Pater J. Adjustments of treatment effect for covariates in clinical trials: statistical and regulatory issues. Drug Inf J 2000 ; 34: 511-523.
25. Vickers AJ How to randomize. J Soc Integr Oncol 2006 ; 4: 194-198.
26. Buyse M., McEntegart D. More nonsense about balance in clinical trials. Appl Clin Trials 2004 ; 14: 13.7 (Letter to the Editor).
27. Hills R., Gray R., Wheatley K. High probability of guessing next treatment allocation with minimisation by clinician. Control Clin Trials 2003 ; 24: 70S.
28. Birkett NJ Adaptive allocation in randomized control trials. Control Clin Trials 1985 ; 6: 146-155.
29. Kalish LA, Begg CB The impact of treatment allocation procedures on nominal significance levels and bias. Control Clin Trials 1987 ; 8: 121-135.
30. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971 ; 58: 403-417.
31. Wei L.-J.. A class of designs for sequential clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1977 ; 72: 382-386.
32. Zelen M. The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1974 ; 27: 365-375.