Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials

Biometrics

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 532-540

  Houede, Nadine ^a   Thall, Peter F ^b   Nguyen, Hoang ^b   Paoletti, Xavier ^c   Kramar, Andrew ^d  

^a INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

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

^c INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^d CENTRE VAL D AURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

Adaptive design; Bayesian design; Clinical trial; Combination dose finding; Utility

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; NUMERICAL METHODS; PATIENT TREATMENT; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

ADAPTIVE DESIGNS; BAYESIAN DESIGN; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMBINATION DOSE-FINDING; COMBINATION THERAPY; DOSE FINDING; IN-PHASE; PHASE I; UTILITY; UTILITY BASED OPTIMIZATION;

TOXICITY;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CANCER; CHEMOTHERAPY; CORRELATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; GAUSSIAN METHOD; OPTIMIZATION; PROBABILITY; SIMULATION;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL THERAPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOXICITY; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77952967060     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: 15410420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01302.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Aranda-Ordaz, F. J. (1981). On two families of transformations to additivity for binary response data. Biometrika 68, 357 363.
2. Babb, J. S., Rogatko, A., and Zacks, S. (1998). Cancer phase I clinical trials: Efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statistics in Medicine 17, 1103 1120. (Pubitemid 28221028)
3. Bekele, B. N. and Shen, Y. (2004). A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics 60, 343 354.
4. Bekele, B. N. and Thall, P. F. (2004). Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99, 26 35.
5. Braun, T. (2002). The bivariate continual reassessment method: Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clinical Trials 23, 240 256.
6. Braun, T. M., Thall, P. F., Nguyen, H., and de Lima, M. (2007). Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent. Clinical Trials 4, 113 124.
7. Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., Solomon, D. H., Kosecoff, J., and Park, R. E. (1986). A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment and Health Care 2, 53 63.
8. Cheung, Y.-K. and Chappell, R. (2000). Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56, 1177 1182.
9. Dalkey, N. C. (1969). An experimental study of group opinion. Futures 1, 408 426.
10. Ivanova, A. (2003). A new dose-finding design for bivariate outcomes. Biometrics 59, 1001 1007.
11. Ivanova, A. and Wang, K. (2006). Bivariate isotonic design for dose-finding with ordered groups. Biometrics 25, 2018 2026.
12. Korn, E. L. and Simon, R. M. (1993). Using the tolerable-dose diagram in the design of phase I combination chemotherapy trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 11, 794 801.
13. Mandrekar, S. J., Cui, Y., and Sargent, D. J. (2007). An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Statistics in Medicine 26, 2317 2320.
14. O'Quigley, J., Pepe, M., and Fisher, L. (1990). Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33 48.
15. O'Quigley, J., Hughes, M. D., and Fenton, T. (2001). Dose-finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics 57, 1018 1029.
16. Robert, C. P. and Cassella, G. (1999). Monte Carlo Statistical Methods.
17. Storer, B. E. (1989). Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45, 925 937.
18. Thall, P. F. and Russell, K. T. (1998). A strategy for dose finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics 54, 251 264.
19. Thall, P. F. and Cook, J. D. (2004). Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60, 684 693.
20. Thall, P. F., Millikan, R. E., Mueller, P., and Lee, S.-J. (2003). Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 59, 487 496.
21. Thall, P. F., Nguyen, H., and Estey, E. H. (2008). Patient-specific dose-finding based on bivariate outcomes and covariates. Biometrics 64, 1126 1136.
22. Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., and Gwyther, S. G. (2000). New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92, 205 216. (Pubitemid 30099779)
23. Yuan, Z., Chappell, R., and Bailey, H. (2007). The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: A Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics 63, 173 179.
24. Zohar, S. and Chevret, S. (2008). Recent developments in adaptive designs for phase I/II dose-finding studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 17, 1071 1083.