Literature DB >> 21835856

Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.

Alexia Iasonos1, Sarah Zohar, John O'Quigley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Toxicity grades underlie the definition of a dose-limiting toxicity but in the majority of phase I designs, the information contained in the individual grades is not used. Some authors have argued that it may be more appropriate to consider a polytomous rather than dichotomous response.
PURPOSE: We investigate whether the added information on individual grades can improve the operating characteristics of the continual reassessment method.
METHODS: We compare the original continual reassessment method design for a binary response with two stage continual reassessment method designs which make different use of lower grade toxicity information via simulations. Specifically, we study a two-stage design that utilizes lower grade toxicities in the first stage only, during the initial non-model-based escalation, and two-stage designs where lower grades are used throughout the trial via explicit models. We postulate a model relating the rates of lower grade toxicities to the rate of dose-limiting toxicity, or assume the relative rates of low-to-high grade toxicities is unknown. The designs were compared in terms of accuracy, patient allocation, and precision.
RESULTS: Significant gains can be achieved when using grades in the first stage of a two-stage design. Otherwise, only modest improvements are seen when the information on grades is exploited via the use of explicit models, where the parameters are known precisely. Continual reassessment method with some use of grade information, increases the number of patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose by approximately 5%. The additional information from lower grades can lead to a small increase in the precision of our estimate of the maximum tolerated dose. LIMITATIONS: Our comparisons are not exhaustive and it would be worth studying other models and situations.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the gains in performance were not as great as we had hoped, we observed no cases where the performance of continual reassessment method was poorer. Our recommendation is that investigators might consider using graded toxicities at the design stage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21835856      PMCID: PMC3293181          DOI: 10.1177/1740774511410732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  15 in total

1.  Continual reassessment designs with early termination.

Authors:  John O'Quigley
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies.

Authors:  John O'Quigley; Xavier Paoletti; Jean Maccario
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials.

Authors:  André Rogatko; David Schoeneck; William Jonas; Mourad Tighiouart; Fadlo R Khuri; Alan Porter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.

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

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

Authors:  Emily M Van Meter; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  An adaptive first in man dose-escalation study of NGX267: statistical, clinical, and operational considerations.

Authors:  Anastasia Ivanova; Michael Murphy
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.051

7.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       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

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

Authors:  Z Yuan; R Chappell; H Bailey
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.571

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
  11 in total

1.  A robust Bayesian dose-finding design for phase I/II clinical trials.

Authors:  Suyu Liu; Valen E Johnson
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 5.899

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 decision-theoretic phase I-II design for ordinal outcomes in two cycles.

Authors:  Juhee Lee; Peter F Thall; Yuan Ji; Peter Müller
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  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

5.  Beyond the dose-limiting toxicity period: Dermatologic adverse events of patients on phase 1 trials of the Cancer Therapeutics Evaluation Program.

Authors:  Alexander Drilon; Anne A Eaton; Katja Schindler; Mrinal M Gounder; David R Spriggs; Pamela Harris; S Percy Ivy; Alexia Iasonos; Mario E Lacouture; David M Hyman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  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

7.  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

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.  Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway; Ken Cheung; Ying Yuan; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Graham M Wheeler; Adrian P Mander; Alun Bedding; Kristian Brock; Victoria Cornelius; Andrew P Grieve; Thomas Jaki; Sharon B Love; Lang'o Odondi; Christopher J Weir; Christina Yap; Simon J Bond
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.