Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 13, 2011, Pages 1563-1573

  Daimon, T ^a,b   Zohar, S ^c   O'Quigley, J ^c  

^a HYOGO COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b OSAKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

Deviance information criterion; Dose finding; Phase I; Posterior model probability; Posterior predictive loss

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CALCULATION; CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT MODEL; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 79956128977     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4054     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45:925-937.
2. Lin Y, Shih WJ. Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics 2001; 2:203-215.
3. Ivanova A, Montazer-Haghighi A, Mohanty SG, Durham SD. Improved up-and-designs for Phase I trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:69-82.
4. Ivanova A. Escalation up-and-down and A+ B designs for dose-finding trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 25:3668-3678.
5. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46:33-48.
6. Whitehead J, Williamson D. Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1998; 8:445-467.
7. Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1103-1120.
8. Shen LZ, O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometrika 1996; 83:395-405.
9. O'Quigley J. Another look at two phase I clinical trial designs. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:2683-2690.
10. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, Seshan VE, Spriggs DR. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clinical Trials 2008; 5:465-477.
11. O'Quigley J, Zohar S. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2010; 20(5):1013-1025.
12. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52:673-684.
13. Cheung YK, Chappell R. A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method. Biometrics 2002; 58:671-674.
14. Lee SM, Cheung YK. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clinical Trials 2009; 6:227-238.
15. Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2009; 104:954-968.
16. Gelfand A, Ghosh S. Model choice: a minimum posterior predictive loss approach. Biometrika 1998; 85:1-11.
17. Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2002; 64:583-639.
18. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors and model uncertainty. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995; 90:773-795.
19. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Spiegelhalter DJ. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10:325-337.
20. Cheung YK. Sequential implementation of stepwise procedures for identifying the maximum tolerated dose. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2007; 102:1448-1461.