Literature DB >> 17447942

The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach.

Z Yuan1, R Chappell, H Bailey.   

Abstract

We consider the case of phase I trials for treatment of cancer or other severe diseases in which grade information is available about the severity of toxicity. Most dose allocation procedures dichotomize toxicity grades based on being dose limiting, which may not work well for severe and possibly irreversible toxicities such as renal, liver, and neurological toxicities, or toxicities with long duration. We propose a simple extension to the continual reassessment method (CRM), called the Quasi-CRM, to incorporate grade information. Toxicity grades are first converted to numeric scores that reflect their impacts on the dose allocation procedure, and then incorporated into the CRM using the quasi-Bernoulli likelihood. A simulation study demonstrates that the Quasi-CRM is superior to the standard CRM and comparable to a univariate version of the Bekele and Thall method (2004, Journal of the American Statistical Association 99, 26-35). We also present sensitivity analysis of the new method with respect to toxicity scores, and discuss practical issues such as extending the simple algorithmic up-and-down designs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17447942     DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00666.x

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


  40 in total

1.  Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Sarah Zohar; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 2.  The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.

Authors:  Kit Man Wong; Anna Capasso; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints.

Authors:  Shing M Lee; Bin Cheng; Ying Kuen Cheung
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Phase I Designs that Allow for Uncertainty in the Attribution of Adverse Events.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 1.864

5.  Dose finding for continuous and ordinal outcomes with a monotone objective function: a unified approach.

Authors:  Anastasia Ivanova; Se Hee Kim
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Phase 1 adaptive dose-finding study of neoadjuvant gemcitabine combined with radiation therapy for patients with high-risk extremity and trunk soft tissue sarcoma.

Authors:  William W Tseng; Shouhao Zhou; Christina A To; Peter F Thall; Alexander J Lazar; Raphael E Pollock; Patrick P Lin; Janice N Cormier; Valerae O Lewis; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt; Matthew T Ballo; Shreyaskumar Patel; Peter W T Pisters
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  BOIN12: Bayesian Optimal Interval Phase I/II Trial Design for Utility-Based Dose Finding in Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies.

Authors:  Ruitao Lin; Yanhong Zhou; Fangrong Yan; Daniel Li; Ying Yuan
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2020-11-16

8.  BAYESIAN PHASE I/II ADAPTIVELY RANDOMIZED ONCOLOGY TRIALS WITH COMBINED DRUGS.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.083

9.  Dose-finding designs for cumulative toxicities using multiple constraints.

Authors:  Shing M Lee; Moreno Ursino; Ying Kuen Cheung; Sarah Zohar
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

10.  Simple benchmark for complex dose finding studies.

Authors:  Ying Kuen Cheung
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.