A novel toxicity scoring system treating toxicity response as a quasi-continuous variable in Phase I clinical trials

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 473-482

  Chen, Zhengjia ^a,b   Krailo, Mark D ^b,c   Azen, Stanley P ^c   Tighiouart, Mourad ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CHILDREN S ONCOLOGY GROUP   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Isotonic regression; Maximum tolerance dose; Multiple toxicities; Normalized equivalent toxicity score; Quasi continuous variable; Toxicity scoring system

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL STUDY; DOSE LIMITING TOXICITY; EXTENDED ISOTONIC DESIGN; HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METHODOLOGY; QUASI EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; TOXICITY; TOXICITY SCORING SYSTEM;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 77957754119     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Leung D.H., Wang Y.G. Isotonic designs for phase I trials. Control Clin Trials 2001, 22:126-138.
2. O'Quigley J., Pepe M., Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical studies in cancer. Biometrics 1990, 46:33-48.
3. Babb J., Rogatko A., Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 1998, 17:1103-1120.
4. Rosenberger W.F., Haines L.M. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med 2002, 21:2757-2770.
5. Potter D. Phase I studies of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer patients: a review of the designs. J Biopharm Stat 2006, 16:579-604.
6. Wang C., Chen T., Tyan I. Designs for phase I cancer clinical trials with differentiation of graded toxicity. Commun Stat-Theory Meth 2000, 29:975-987.
7. Bekele B.N., Thall P. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. J Am Stat Assoc 2004, 99:26-35.
8. Yuan Z., Chappell R., Bailey H. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics 2006, 63:173-179.
9. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE) 2003, [Available at http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/ctc.html].
10. Storer B. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989, 45:925-937.
11. Lin Y., Shih W.J. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics 2001, 2(2):203-215.
12. O'Quigley J., Shen L. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996, 52:673-684.
13. Goodman S., Zahurak M., Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1995, 14:1149-1161.
14. Heyd J.M., Carlin B.P. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 1999, 18:1307-1321.
15. Chen Z., Krailo M.D., Sun J., Azen S.P. Range and trend of expected toxicity level (ETL) in standard A+B designs: a report from the children's oncology group. Contemp Clin Trials 2009, 30(2):123-128.
16. Bartholomew D. Isotonic inference. Encyclopedia of Statistical Science 1983, Volume 4:260-265. Wiley, New York.