Literature DB >> 11453884

Learning from previous responses in phase I dose-escalation studies.

J Whitehead1, Y Zhou, N Stallard, S Todd, A Whitehead.   

Abstract

Dose escalation in phase I studies is generally performed on the basis of clinical experience and judgement. In this paper some of the statistical approaches that have been proposed for the formalization of the procedure are described. Apart from the use of the Continual Reassessment Method in oncology studies, such formal methods have received little implementation. The purpose of presenting them here is to promote their further exploration and appropriate implementation. Certain limitations are discussed, which will be best overcome by collaboration between clinical pharmacologists and statisticians.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11453884      PMCID: PMC2014510          DOI: 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01383.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  15 in total

Review 1.  Stopping rules for phase II studies.

Authors:  N Stallard; J Whitehead; S Todd; A Whitehead
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Easy-to-implement Bayesian methods for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  J Whitehead; S Patterson; D Webber; S Francis; Y Zhou
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  C Gatsonis; J B Greenhouse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A novel Bayesian decision procedure for early-phase dose-finding studies.

Authors:  S Patterson; S Francis; M Ireson; D Webber; J Whitehead
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.051

5.  Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies.

Authors:  S N Goodman; M L Zahurak; S Piantadosi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  D Faries
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.051

7.  A comparison of two phase I trial designs.

Authors:  E L Korn; D Midthune; T T Chen; L V Rubinstein; M C Christian; R M Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials.

Authors:  P F Thall; K E Russell
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments.

Authors:  J Whitehead; H Brunier
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995 May 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effective dose of nefopam in 80% of patients (ED80): a study using the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Hélène Beloeil; Mathilde Eurin; Aude Thévenin; Dan Benhamou; Jean-Xavier Mazoit
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 4.335

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.