A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 29, 2012, Pages 3885-3895

  Zhong, Wei ^a   Koopmeiners, Joseph S ^a   Carlin, Bradley P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian adaptive methods; Continual reassessment method (CRM); Maximum tolerated dose (MTD); Phase I II clinical trial; Surrogate efficacy; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIVARIATE ANALYSIS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROBABILITY; REPEAT PROCEDURE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOXICITY TESTING; TRIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; LYMPHOMA; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84870061775     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5477     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Braun T. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23(3):240-256.
2. Thall P, Cook J. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60(3):684-693.
3. Berry S, Carlin B, Lee J, Muller P. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2010.
4. Collins J, Grieshaber C, Chabner B. Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1990; 82(16):1321.
5. Storer B. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 1989; 45(3):925-937.
6. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 46(1):33-48.
7. Murtaugh P, Fisher L. Bivariate binary models of efficacy and toxicity in dose-ranging trials. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 1990; 19(6):2003-2020.
8. Bekele N, Shen Y.A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics 2005; 61(2):343-354.
9. Zhang W, Sargent D, Mandrekar S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(14):2365-2383.
10. Gasparini M, Eisele J.A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 2000; 56(2):609-615.
11. Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 2006; 62(3):777-787.
12. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 1999; 282(8):790-795.
13. Fleming T, DeMets D. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996; 125(7):605.
14. Arnold B, Strauss D. Bivariate distributions with conditionals in prescribed exponential families. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 1991; 53(2):365-375.
15. Cowles M, Carlin B. Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics: a comparative review. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91(434):883-904.
16. Cheung Y, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56(4):1177-1182.
17. Li Y, Bekele B, Ji Y, Cook J. Dose-schedule finding in phase I/II clinical trials using a Bayesian isotonic transformation. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(24):4895-4913.
18. Yin G, Yuan Y.A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 2009; 65(3):866-875.
19. Mandrekar S, Qin R, Sargent D. Model-based phase I designs incorporating toxicity and efficacy for single and dual agent drug combinations: methods and challenges. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(10):1077-1083.