Literature DB >> 20364321

Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity.

Xiudong Lei1, Ying Yuan, Guosheng Yin.   

Abstract

In oncology, toxicity is typically observable shortly after a chemotherapy treatment, whereas efficacy, often characterized by tumor shrinkage, is observable after a relatively long period of time. In a phase II clinical trial design, we propose a Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We model efficacy as a time-to-event endpoint and toxicity as a binary endpoint, sharing common random effects in order to induce dependence between the bivariate outcomes. More generally, we allow the randomization probability to depend on patients' specific covariates, such as prognostic factors. Early stopping boundaries are constructed for toxicity and futility, and a superior treatment arm is recommended at the end of the trial. Following the setup of a recent renal cancer clinical trial at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we conduct extensive simulation studies under various scenarios to investigate the performance of the proposed method, and compare it with available Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20364321     DOI: 10.1007/s10985-010-9163-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  11 in total

1.  Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios.

Authors:  Guosheng Yin; Yisheng Li; Yuan Ji
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation.

Authors:  Mark J Ratain; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity.

Authors:  M R Conaway; G R Petroni
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

5.  Sequential allocation in clinical trials comparing two exponential survival curves.

Authors:  T A Louis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis.

Authors:  D A Berry; S G Eick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  T R Fleming
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials.

Authors:  Peter F Thall; J Kyle Wathen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs.

Authors:  Peter F Thall; John D Cook
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  M N Chang; T M Therneau; H S Wieand; S S Cha
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  2 in total

1.  Statistical justification of expansion cohorts in phase 1 cancer trials.

Authors:  Ali A Mokdad; Xian-Jin Xie; Hong Zhu; David E Gerber; Daniel F Heitjan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Worth adapting? Revisiting the usefulness of outcome-adaptive randomization.

Authors:  J Jack Lee; Nan Chen; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 12.531

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.