Literature DB >> 17080752

Identifying the most successful dose (MSD) in dose-finding studies in cancer.

Sarah Zohar1, John O'Quigley.   

Abstract

For a dose finding study in cancer, the most successful dose (MSD), among a group of available doses, is that dose at which the overall success rate is the highest. This rate is the product of the rate of seeing non-toxicities together with the rate of tumor response. A successful dose finding trial in this context is one where we manage to identify the MSD in an efficient manner. In practice we may also need to consider algorithms for identifying the MSD which can incorporate certain restrictions, the most common restriction maintaining the estimated toxicity rate alone below some maximum rate. In this case the MSD may correspond to a different level than that for the unconstrained MSD and, in providing a final recommendation, it is important to underline that it is subject to the given constraint. We work with the approach described in O'Quigley et al. [Biometrics 2001; 57(4):1018-1029]. The focus of that work was dose finding in HIV where both information on toxicity and efficacy were almost immediately available. Recent cancer studies are beginning to fall under this same heading where, as before, toxicity can be quickly evaluated and, in addition, we can rely on biological markers or other measures of tumor response. Mindful of the particular context of cancer, our purpose here is to consider the methodology developed by O'Quigley et al. and its practical implementation. We also carry out a study on the doubly under-parameterized model, developed by O'Quigley et al. but not

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17080752     DOI: 10.1002/pst.209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Stat        ISSN: 1539-1604            Impact factor:   1.894


  6 in total

1.  Continual Reassessment and Related Dose-Finding Designs.

Authors:  John O'Quigley; Mark Conaway
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.901

2.  A Phase I/II trial design when response is unobserved in subjects with dose-limiting toxicity.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun; Shan Kang; Jeremy Mg Taylor
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Unified approach for extrapolation and bridging of adult information in early-phase dose-finding paediatric studies.

Authors:  Caroline Petit; Adeline Samson; Satoshi Morita; Moreno Ursino; Jérémie Guedj; Vincent Jullien; Emmanuelle Comets; Sarah Zohar
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Obtaining the optimal dose in alcohol dependence studies.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Lei Liu; John O'Quigley; Bankole A Johnson
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 4.157

5.  A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Andrew S Wilton; Elyn R Riedel; Venkatraman E Seshan; David R Spriggs
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.

Authors:  Thomas Burnett; Pavel Mozgunov; Philip Pallmann; Sofia S Villar; Graham M Wheeler; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 8.775

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.