Literature DB >> 21344472

Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading.

Emily M Van Meter1, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay.   

Abstract

Currently many dose-finding clinical trial designs, including the continual reassessment method (CRM) and the standard ' 3 + 3' design, dichotomize toxicity outcomes based on the pre-specified dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) criteria. This loss of information is particularly inefficient due to the small sample sizes in phase I trials. Common Toxicity Criteria (CTCAEv3.0) classify adverse events into grades 1-5, which range from 1 as a mild adverse event to 5 as death related to an adverse event. In this paper, we extend the CRM to include ordinal toxicity outcomes as specified by CTCAEv3.0 using the proportional odds model (POM) and compare results with the dichotomous CRM. A sensitivity analysis of the new design compares various target DLT rates, sample sizes, and cohort sizes. This design is also assessed under various dose-toxicity relationship models including POMs as well as those that violate the proportional odds assumption. A simulation study shows that the proportional odds CRM performs as well as the dichotomous CRM on all criteria compared (including safety criteria such as percentage of patients treated at highly toxic or suboptimal dose levels) and with improved estimation of the maximum tolerated dose when the PO assumption is not violated. These findings suggest that it is beneficial to incorporate ordinal toxicity endpoints into phase I trial designs.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21344472      PMCID: PMC3117067          DOI: 10.1002/sim.4069

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


  16 in total

1.  A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Ying Kuen Cheung; Rick Chappell
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  William F Rosenberger; Linda M Haines
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; L Z Shen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; M Pepe; L Fisher
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  B E Storer
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study.

Authors:  S Chevret
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  N Ishizuka; Y Ohashi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001 Sep 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Quantile estimation following non-parametric phase I clinical trials with ordinal response.

Authors:  Ranjan K Paul; William F Rosenberger; Nancy Flournoy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity.

Authors:  P F Thall; S-J Lee
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.437

10.  Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Harald Siedentop
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  16 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.  A unified framework for the comparison of treatments with ordinal responses.

Authors:  Tong-Yu Lu; Wai-Yin Poon; Siu Hung Cheung
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 2.500

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

Review 5.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: requiem for the 3 + 3 design for phase I trials.

Authors:  X Paoletti; M Ezzalfani; C Le Tourneau
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 32.976

6.  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

7.  Seamless Phase I/II Adaptive Design for Oncology Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Christopher Tait
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 1.051

8.  Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Emily M Van Meter; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  A Bayesian adaptive design for cancer phase I trials using a flexible range of doses.

Authors:  Mourad Tighiouart; Galen Cook-Wiens; André Rogatko
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 1.051

10.  Modeling adverse event counts in phase I clinical trials of a cytotoxic agent.

Authors:  Daniel G Muenz; Thomas M Braun; Jeremy Mg Taylor
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-05-19       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.