Adaptive designs for identifying optimal biological dose for molecularly targeted agents

Clinical Trials

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 319-327

  Zang, Yong ^a   Lee, J Jack ^a   Yuan, Ying ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MOLECULAR THERAPY AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFICACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; STUDY DESIGN; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HUMAN; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84901271617     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774514529848     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Tourneau CL, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 ; 101: 708-20
2. Korn EL. Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 ; 96: 977-78
3. Parulekar WR, Eisenhauer EA. Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: Theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 ; 96: 990-97
4. LoRusso PM, Boerner SA, Seymour L. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 ; 16: 1710-18
5. Postel-Vinay S, Arkenau HT, Olmos D, et al. Clinical benefit in phase I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: Does dose matter?. Br J Cancer. 2009 ; 100: 1373-78
6. Hunsberger S, Rubinstein LV, Dancey J, Korn EL. Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint. Stat Med. 2005 ; 24: 2171-81
7. Hoering A, LeBlanc M, Crowley J. Seamless phase I-II trial design for assessing toxicity and efficacy for targeted agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2011 ; 17: 640-46
8. Jain RK, Lee JJ, Hong D, et al. Phase I oncology studies: Evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 ; 16: 1289-97
9. Reynolds AR. Potential relevance of bell-shaped and U-shaped dose-responses for the therapeutic targeting of angiogenesis in cancer. Dose Response. 2010 ; 8: 253-84
10. Brunetto AT, Kristeleit RS, De Bono JS. Early oncology clinical trial design in the era of molecular-targeted agents. Future Oncol. 2010 ; 6: 1339-52
11. Mandrekar SJ, Qin R, Sargent DJ. Model-based phase I designs incorporating toxicity and efficacy for single and dual agent drug combinations: Methods and challenges. Stat Med. 2010 ; 29: 1077-83
12. Barlow RE, Bartholomew DJ, Bremner JM, Brunk HD Statistical Inference under Order Restrictions. London: John Wiley & Sons ; 1972 :
13. Robertson T, Wright FT, Dykstra RL Order Restricted Statistical Inference. New York: John Wiley & Sons ; 1988 :
14. Gelman A, Jakulin A, Pittau MG, Su Y. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Ann Appl Stat. 2008 ; 2: 1360-83
15. Turner TR, Wollan PC. Locating a maximum using isotonic regression. Comput Stat Data An. 1997 ; 25: 305-20