Literature DB >> 11512130

An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose-response setting.

B E Storer1.   

Abstract

Both traditional phase I designs and the increasingly popular continual reassessment method (CRM) designs select an estimate of maximum tolerable dose (MTD) from among a set of prespecified dose levels. Although CRM designs use an implied dose-response model to select the next dose level, in general it is neither assumed nor necessary that this model be tied to the actual dose of a drug. In contrast, in our two-stage design the fitting of a dose-response model after data have been collected is a necessary feature of the design, and the MTD is not constrained to be one of the prespecified dose levels. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the two-stage design, two likelihood-based CRM designs, and two traditional designs in estimating the MTD in situations where one assumes that an explicit dose-response model exists. Under a wide variety of dose-response settings, we examined the bias and precision of estimates, and the fraction of estimates that were extremely high or low. We also studied the effect of adding a model fitting step at the end of a traditional design or a CRM design. The best performance was achieved using the two-stage and CRM designs. Although the CRM designs generally had smaller bias, the two-stage design yielded equal or somewhat smaller precision in some cases. The addition of a model-fitting step slightly improved the precision of the CRM estimates and decreased the percentage of extreme estimates. Allowing interpolation between doses for updating during CRM did not improve overall performance. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11512130     DOI: 10.1002/sim.903

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


  22 in total

1.  Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials.

Authors:  Yuan Ji; Sue-Jane Wang
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Kenneth R Hess; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Mark R Gilbert
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials.

Authors:  Lili Zhao; Julia Lee; Rajen Mody; Thomas M Braun
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Phase I Study of a CD45-Targeted Antibody-Radionuclide Conjugate for High-Risk Lymphoma.

Authors:  Ryan D Cassaday; Oliver W Press; John M Pagel; Joseph G Rajendran; Ted A Gooley; Darrell R Fisher; Leona A Holmberg; Robert S Miyaoka; Brenda M Sandmaier; Damian J Green; Ajay K Gopal
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Substantial susceptibility of chronic lymphocytic leukemia to BCL2 inhibition: results of a phase I study of navitoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Authors:  Andrew W Roberts; John F Seymour; Jennifer R Brown; William G Wierda; Thomas J Kipps; Seong Lin Khaw; Dennis A Carney; Simon Z He; David C S Huang; Hao Xiong; Yue Cui; Todd A Busman; Evelyn M McKeegan; Andrew P Krivoshik; Sari H Enschede; Rod Humerickhouse
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Continual reassessment and related designs in dose-finding studies.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Fangrong Yan; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Ying Yuan
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  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

9.  A phase I study of pulse high-dose vorinostat (V) plus rituximab (R), ifosphamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) in patients with relapsed lymphoma.

Authors:  Lihua E Budde; Michelle M Zhang; Andrei R Shustov; John M Pagel; Ted A Gooley; George R Oliveira; Tara L Chen; Nancy L Knudsen; Jennifer E Roden; Britt E Kammerer; Shani L Frayo; Thomas A Warr; Thomas E Boyd; Oliver W Press; Ajay K Gopal
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 6.998

10.  Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic modeling of abexinostat-induced thrombocytopenia across different patient populations: application for the determination of the maximum tolerated doses in both lymphoma and solid tumour patients.

Authors:  Quentin Chalret du Rieu; Sylvain Fouliard; Mélanie White-Koning; Ioana Kloos; Etienne Chatelut; Marylore Chenel
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 3.850

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.