Literature DB >> 10790677

Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials.

P F Thall1, R E Millikan, H G Sung.   

Abstract

In oncology, a patient's treatment often involves multiple courses of chemotherapy. The most common medical practice in choosing treatments for successive courses is to repeat a treatment that is successful in a given course and otherwise switch to a different treatment. Patient outcome thus consists of a sequence of dependent response variables and corresponding treatments. Despite the widespread use of such adaptive 'play-the-winner-and-drop-the-loser' algorithms in medical settings involving multiple treatment courses, most statistical methods for treatment evaluation characterize early patient outcome as a single response to a single treatment, resulting in a substantial loss of information. In this paper, we provide a statistical framework for multi-course clinical trials involving some variant of the play-the-winner-and-drop-the-loser strategy. The aim is to design and conduct the trial to more closely reflect actual clinical practice, and thus increase the amount of information per patient. The proposed design is similar to a multi-stage cross-over trial, with the essential difference that here all treatments after the first course are assigned adaptively. We illustrate the method by application to a randomized phase II trial for androgen independent prostate cancer. We consider the goals of selecting one best treatment, or selecting a best ordered pair of treatments with the second given if the first fails to achieve a patient success. A simulation study is reported, and extensions to trials involving toxicity or regimen-related death are discussed. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10790677     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000430)19:8<1011::aid-sim414>3.0.co;2-m

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  55 in total

1.  Dynamic treatment regimes for managing chronic health conditions: a statistical perspective.

Authors:  Bibhas Chakraborty
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  A Generalization Error for Q-Learning.

Authors:  Susan A Murphy
Journal:  J Mach Learn Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.654

3.  Statistical methods for analyzing sequentially randomized trials.

Authors:  Oliver Bembom; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Sequential causal inference: application to randomized trials of adaptive treatment strategies.

Authors:  Ree Dawson; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  A review of phase 2-3 clinical trial designs.

Authors:  Peter F Thall
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2007-09-02       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Developing and testing adaptive treatment strategies using substance-induced psychosis as an example.

Authors:  Ree Dawson; Alan I Green; Robert E Drake; Thomas H McGlashan; Bella Schanzer; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  Psychopharmacol Bull       Date:  2008

7.  Reinforcement learning design for cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Yufan Zhao; Michael R Kosorok; Donglin Zeng
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Semiparametric Single-Index Model for Estimating Optimal Individualized Treatment Strategy.

Authors:  Rui Song; Shikai Luo; Donglin Zeng; Hao Helen Zhang; Wenbin Lu; Zhiguo Li
Journal:  Electron J Stat       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.125

9.  Innovative Clinical Trial Designs: Toward a 21st-Century Health Care System.

Authors:  Tze L Lai; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2011-12

Review 10.  Inference for non-regular parameters in optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Authors:  Bibhas Chakraborty; Susan Murphy; Victor Strecher
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.