Literature DB >> 12926728

Continual reassessment method for ordered groups.

John O'Quigley1, Xavier Paoletti.   

Abstract

We investigate the two-group continual reassessment method for a dose-finding study in which we anticipate some ordering between the groups. This is a situation in which, for either group, we have little or almost no knowledge about which of the available dose levels will correspond to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), but we may have quite strong knowledge concerning which of the two groups will have the higher level of MTD, if indeed they do not have the same MTD. The motivation for studying this problem came from an investigation into a new therapy for acute leukemia in children. The background to this study is discussed. There were two groups of patients: one group already received heavy prior therapy while the second group had received relatively much lighter prior therapy. It was therefore anticipated that the second group would have an MTD higher or at least as high as the first. Generally, likelihood methods or, equivalently, the use of noninformative Bayes priors, can be used to model the main aspects of the study, i.e., the MTD for one of the groups, reserving more informative Bayes modeling to be applied to the secondary features of the study. These secondary features may simply be the direction of the difference between the MTD levels for the two groups or, possibly, information on the potential gap between the two MTDs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12926728     DOI: 10.1111/1541-0420.00050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  27 in total

1.  Isotonic designs for phase I trials in partially ordered groups.

Authors:  Mark Conaway
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Scientific Review of Phase I Protocols With Novel Dose-Escalation Designs: How Much Information Is Needed?

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Mithat Gönen; George J Bosl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Robust EM Continual Reassessment Method in Oncology Dose Finding.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of cancer therapeutic agents.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun; Shufang Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Extended model-based designs for more complex dose-finding studies.

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

6.  A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Paul W Read; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 1.894

7.  A Generalized Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Agent Phase I Trials.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun; Nan Jia
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 1.452

8.  Dose--schedule finding in phase I/II clinical trials using a Bayesian isotonic transformation.

Authors:  Yisheng Li; B Nebiyou Bekele; Yuan Ji; John D Cook
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Designs for phase I trials in ordered groups.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway; Nolan A Wages
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Risk-group-specific dose finding based on an average toxicity score.

Authors:  B Nebiyou Bekele; Yisheng Li; Yuan Ji
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.