Using the continual reassessment method to estimate the minimum effective dose in phase II dose-finding studies: A case study

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 414-421

  Zohar, Sarah ^a   Resche Rigon, Matthieu ^a   Chevret, Sylvie ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR;

ALGORITHM; ALLOGRAFT; ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PERIPHERAL BLOOD STEM CELL; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; GRANULOCYTE COLONY-STIMULATING FACTOR; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS;

EID: 84878258637     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774511411593     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. 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
2. Kummar S, Gutierrez M, Doroshow JH, Murgo AJ. Drug development in oncology: classical cytotoxics and molecularly targeted agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006 ; 62: 15-26
3. Armitage P, Colton T Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. New-York: John Wiley and Sons ; 1998 :
4. de Spirlet M, Treluyer JM, Chevret S, et al. Tocolytic effects of intravenous nitroglycerin. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004 ; 18: 207-13
5. Desfrere L, Zohar S, Morville P, et al. Dose-finding study of ibuprofen in patent ductus arteriosus using the continual reassessment method. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2005 ; 30: 121-32
6. Fabre E, Chevret S, Piechaud JF, et al. An approach for dose finding of drugs in infants: sedation by midazolam studied using the continual reassessment method. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998 ; 46: 395-401
7. Lefrere F, Zohar S, Bresson JL, et al. A double-blind low dose-finding phase II study of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor combined with chemotherapy for stem cell mobilization in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006 ; 91: 550-53
8. Treluyer JM, Zohar S, Rey E, et al. Minimum effective dose of midazolam for sedation of mechanically ventilated neonates. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2005 ; 30: 479-85
9. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 ; 101: 708-20
10. Zohar S, O'Quigley J. Re: Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 ; 101: 1732-33
11. Ting N Dose Finding in Drug Development. Ting N, ed. Berlin: Springer ; 2006 :
12. Beloeil H, Eurin M, Thevenin A, et al. Effective dose of nefopam in 80% of patients (ED80): a study using the continual reassessment method. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 ; 64: 686-93
13. Ahn C. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs. Stat Med. 1998 ; 17: 1537-49
14. Braun TM, Levine JE, Ferrara JL. Determining a maximum tolerated cumulative dose: dose reassignment within the TITE-CRM. Control Clin Trials. 2003 ; 24: 669-81
15. Faries D. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 1994 ; 4: 147-64
16. Ishizuka N, Ohashi Y. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001 ; 20: 2661-81
17. Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, et al. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med. 1994 ; 13: 1799-806
18. Moller S. An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses. Stat Med. 1995 ; 14: 911-22
19. O'Quigley J. Curve-free and model-based continual reassessment method designs. Biometrics. 2002 ; 58: 245-49
20. Yuan Z, Chappell R, Bailey H. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach. Biometrics. 2007 ; 63: 173-79
21. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics. 1996 ; 52: 673-84
22. Chevret S. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Stat Med. 1993 ; 12: 1093-108
23. Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med. 1995 ; 14: 1149-61
24. O'Quigley J, Chevret S. Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: a review and results of a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med. 1991 ; 10: 1647-64
25. Thall PF, Russell KE. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics. 1998 ; 54: 251-64
26. Cheung YK, Chappell R. A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method. Biometrics. 2002 ; 58: 671-74
27. Lee SM, Cheung YK. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clin Trials. 2009 ; 6: 227-38
28. Yin G, Yuan Y. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 2009 ; 104: 954-68
29. Chevret S Statistical Methods for Dose-Finding Experiments. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons ; 2006 :
30. Haas R, Mohle R, Fruhauf S, et al. Patient characteristics associated with successful mobilizing and autografting of peripheral blood progenitor cells in malignant lymphoma. Blood. 1994 ; 83: 3787-94
31. Lefrere F, Belanger C, Audat F, et al. The dose of granulocyte-colony- stimulating factor after chemopriming treatment does not influence apheresis yield of progenitor cells: a retrospective study of 91 cases. Transfusion. 1999 ; 39: 1207-11
32. Resche-Rigon M, Zohar S, Chevret S. Adaptive designs for dose-finding in non-cancer phase II trials: influence of early unexpected outcomes. Clin Trials. 2008 ; 5: 595-606
33. Zohar S, Chevret S. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies. Stat Med. 2001 ; 20: 2827-43