Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 17, 2011, Pages 2070-2080

  Meter, Emily M Van ^a   Garrett Mayer, Elizabeth ^a   Bandyopadhyay, Dipankar ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Continual reassessment method; Dose finding; Ordinal; Proportional odds

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE CALCULATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

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

EID: 79960009762     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4069     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ishizuka N, Ohashi Y. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:2661-2681.
2. Heyd JM, Carlin BP. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:1307-1321.
3. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clinical Trials 2006; 3:57-71.
4. Piantadosi S, Fisher JD, Grossman S. Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials. Cancer Chemotheraphy Pharmacology 1998; 41:429-436.
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. CTCAE. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0, DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS, 2003. Available from.
7. Rosenberger W, Haines L. Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:2757-2770.
8. Yuan Z, Chappell R, Bailey H. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics 2007; 63:173-179.
9. Bekele BN, Thall PF. Dose-finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2004; 99:26-36.
10. Thall PF, Lee SJ. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2003; 13:251-261.
11. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1537-1549.
12. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45:925-937.
13. Wang C, Chen T, Tyan I. Designs for phase I cancer clinical trials with differentiation of graded toxicity. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Method 2000; 29:975-987.
14. Chen M, Dey D. Generalized Linear Models: A Bayesian Perspective. Marcel Dekker: New York, 2000.
15. Shen LZ, O'Quigley J. Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification. Biometrika 1996; 83:395-405.
16. Zohar S, Chevret S. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:2827-2843.
17. Chevret S. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Statistics in Medicine 1993; 12:1093-1108.
18. Cheung YK, Chappell R. A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method. Biometrics 2002; 58:671-674.
19. Gerke O, Siedentop H. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology-a simulation study. Statistics in Medicine 2007;27:5329-5344.
20. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52:673-684.
21. Paul RK, Rosenberger WF, Flournoy N. Quantile estimation following non-parametric phase I clinical trials with ordinal response. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:2483-2495.
22. Harrell Jr FE. Regression Modeling Strategies with Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer: New York, NY, 2001.
23. R. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, 2009. Available from.