Literature DB >> 21341302

Estimating the dose-toxicity curve in completed phase I studies.

Alexia Iasonos1, Irina Ostrovnaya.   

Abstract

While there is an extensive amount of literature covering prospective designs for phase I trials, the methodology for analyzing these data is limited. Prospective designs select the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) through a dose escalation scheme based on a model or on empirical rules. For example, the '3 + 3' method (standard method: SM) assigns patients in cohorts of three and expands to six if one toxicity is observed. It has been shown previously that the MTD chosen by the SM may be low, possibly leading to a non-efficacious dose. Additionally, when deviation from the original trial design occurs, the rules for determining MTD might not be applicable. We hypothesize that a retrospective analysis would suggest an MTD that is more accurate than the one obtained by the SM. A weighted Continual Reassessment Method (CRM-w) has been suggested (Biometrics 2005; 61:749-756) for analyzing data obtained from designs other than the prospective Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). However, CRM-w has not been evaluated in trials that follow the SM design. In this study, we propose a method to analyze completed phase I trials and possibly confirm or amend the recommended phase II dose, based on a constrained maximum likelihood estimation (CMLE). A comparison of CRM-w, isotonic regression, and CMLE in analyzing simulated SM trials shows that CMLE more accurately selects the true MTD than SM, and is better or comparable to isotonic regression and CRM-w. Confidence intervals around the toxicity probabilities at each dose level are estimated using the cumulative toxicity data. A programming code is included.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21341302      PMCID: PMC4849410          DOI: 10.1002/sim.4206

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


  24 in total

1.  A semiparametric approach to analysing dose-response data.

Authors:  Q J Nottingham; J B Birch
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Estimating the probability of toxicity at the target dose following an up-and-down design.

Authors:  Mario Stylianou; Michael Proschan; Nancy Flournoy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A generalization of the probit and logit methods for dose response curves.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  A Bayesian evaluation of enrolling additional patients at the maximum tolerated dose in Phase I trials.

Authors:  Mithat Gönen
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Kernel estimates of dose response.

Authors:  J G Staniswalis; V Cooper
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  A comparison of two phase I trial designs.

Authors:  E L Korn; D Midthune; T T Chen; L V Rubinstein; M C Christian; R M Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Comparison of Isotonic Designs for Dose-Finding.

Authors:  Anastasia Ivanova; Nancy Flournoy
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 1.452

8.  Phase I study of an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor, suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  William Kevin Kelly; Owen A O'Connor; Lee M Krug; Judy H Chiao; Mark Heaney; Tracy Curley; Barbara MacGregore-Cortelli; William Tong; J Paul Secrist; Lawrence Schwartz; Stacy Richardson; Elaina Chu; Semra Olgac; Paul A Marks; Howard Scher; Victoria M Richon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-05-16       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Phase I trial of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor and protein kinase C inhibitor 7-hydroxystaurosporine in combination with Fluorouracil in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  Jeremy Kortmansky; Manish A Shah; Andreas Kaubisch; Amanda Weyerbacher; Sandy Yi; William Tong; Rebecca Sowers; Mithat Gonen; Eileen O'reilly; Nancy Kemeny; David I Ilson; Leonard B Saltz; Robert G Maki; David P Kelsen; Gary K Schwartz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; S Zohar
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  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

4.  Toxicity Attribution in Phase I Trials: Evaluating the Effect of Dose on the Frequency of Related and Unrelated Toxicities.

Authors:  Anne Eaton; Alexia Iasonos; Mrinal M Gounder; Erika G Pamer; Alexander Drilon; Diana Vulih; Gary L Smith; S Percy Ivy; David R Spriggs; David M Hyman
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for smooth emergence from sevoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing endovascular neurointervention.

Authors:  Ji-Hye Kwon; Young Hee Shin; Nam-Su Gil; Jungchan Park; Yoon Joo Chung; Tae Soo Hahm; Ji Seon Jeong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.