Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 291-300

  Horton, Bethany Jablonski ^a   Wages, Nolan A ^a   Conaway, Mark R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

continual reassessment method; dose finding studies; toxicity probability interval

Indexed keywords

UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

BAYES THEOREM; BAYESIAN OPTIMAL INTERVAL DESIGN; CONFERENCE PAPER; DOSIMETRY; DRUG TOXICITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIKELIHOOD BASED CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; METHODOLOGY; MODIFIED TOXICITY PROBABILITY INTERVAL; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROBABILITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ALGORITHM; BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; BIOSTATISTICS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 84994153839     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7043     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. O'Quigley J, Shen LZ. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 1996; 52(2):673–684.
2. Iasonos A, Gönen M, Bosl GJ. Scientific review of phase I protocols with novel dose-escalation designs: how much information is needed? Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015; 33(19):2221–2225.
3. Braun TM. The current design of oncology phase I clinical trials: progressing from algorithms to statistical models. Chinese Clinical Oncology 2014; 3(1).
4. O'Quigley J, Conaway M. Continual reassessment and related dose-finding designs. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 2010; 25(2):202–216.
5. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56(4):1177–1182.
6. Wages NA, Conaway MR, O'Quigley J. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering. Biometrics 2011; 67(4):1555–1563.
7. Wages NA, O'Quigley J, Conaway MR. Phase I design for completely or partially ordered treatment schedules. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 33(4):569–579.
8. O'Quigley J, Iasonos A. Bridging solutions in dose-finding problems. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2014; 6(2):185–197.
9. Wages NA, Tait C. Seamless phase I/II adaptive design for oncology trials of molecularly targeted agents. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2015; 25(5):903–920.
10. Paoletti X, Ezzalfani M, Le Tourneau C. Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3 + 3 design for phase I trials. Annals of Oncology 2015; 26(9):1808–1812.
11. Iasonos A, O'Quigley J. Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014; 32(23):2505–2511.
12. Ji Y, Liu P, Li Y, Bekele BN. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials. Clinical Trials 2010; 7(6):653–663.
13. Liu S, Yuan Y. Bayesian optimal interval designs for phase I clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 2015; 64(3):507–523.
14. 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(5):465–477.
15. Ji Y, Wang SJ. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013; 31(14):1785–1791.
16. O'Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990; 40(1):33–48.
17. Lee SM, Cheung YK. Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clinical Trials 2009; 6(3):227–238.
18. Iasonos A, O'Quigley J. Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method. Statistics in Medicine 2012; 31(30):4321–4336.
19. Jia X, Lee SM, Cheung YK. Characterization of the likelihood continual reassessment method. Biometrika 2014; 101(3):599–612.
20. Barlow RE, Bartholomew DJ, Bremner J, Brunk HD. Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions: The Theory and Application of Isotonic Regression. Wiley: London, 1972.
21. Cheung YK. Dose-finding by the Continual Reassessment Method. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2011.
22. Paoletti X, O'Quigley J, Maccario J. Design efficiency in dose-finding studies. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2004; 45(2):197–214.