Literature DB >> 22807126

A trivariate continual reassessment method for phase I/II trials of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy.

Wei Zhong1, Joseph S Koopmeiners, Bradley P Carlin.   

Abstract

Recently, many Bayesian methods have been developed for dose finding when simultaneously modeling both toxicity and efficacy outcomes in a blended phase I/II fashion. A further challenge arises when all the true efficacy data cannot be obtained quickly after the treatment so that surrogate markers are instead used (e.g., in cancer trials). We propose a framework to jointly model the probabilities of toxicity, efficacy, and surrogate efficacy given a particular dose. Our trivariate binary model is specified as a composition of two bivariate binary submodels. In particular, we extend the bivariate continual reassessment method (CRM), as well as utilize a particular Gumbel copula. The resulting trivariate algorithm utilizes all the available data at any given time point and can flexibly stop the trial early for either toxicity or efficacy. Our simulation studies demonstrate that our proposed method can successfully improve dosage targeting efficiency and guard against excess toxicity over a variety of true model settings and degrees of surrogacy.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22807126      PMCID: PMC3532950          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5477

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


  15 in total

1.  Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs?

Authors:  R Temple
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Daniel J Sargent; Sumithra Mandrekar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  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

Review 4.  Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?

Authors:  T R Fleming; D L DeMets
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  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

6.  A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial.

Authors:  B Nebiyou Bekele; Yu Shen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials.

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

8.  Model-based phase I designs incorporating toxicity and efficacy for single and dual agent drug combinations: methods and challenges.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Rui Qin; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Dose--schedule finding in phase I/II clinical trials using a Bayesian isotonic transformation.

Authors:  Yisheng Li; B Nebiyou Bekele; Yuan Ji; John D Cook
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents.

Authors:  Guosheng Yin; Ying Yuan
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  9 in total

1.  The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  A latent variable model for improving inference in trials assessing the effect of dose on toxicity and composite efficacy endpoints.

Authors:  James Ms Wason; Shaun R Seaman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  A Bayesian phase I/II biomarker-based design for identifying subgroup-specific optimal dose for immunotherapy.

Authors:  Beibei Guo; Yong Zang
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 2.494

4.  Bayesian approach to estimate AUC, partition coefficient and drug targeting index for studies with serial sacrifice design.

Authors:  Tianli Wang; Kyle Baron; Wei Zhong; Richard Brundage; William Elmquist
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Discussion of 'small-sample behavior of novel phase I cancer trial designs' by Assaf P Oron and Peter D Hoff.

Authors:  Bradley P Carlin; Wei Zhong; Joseph S Koopmeiners
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Unified exact design with early stopping rules for single arm clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

Authors:  Wei Wei; Denise Esserman; Michael Kane; Daniel Zelterman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  A modular framework for early-phase seamless oncology trials.

Authors:  Philip S Boonstra; Thomas M Braun; Elizabeth C Chase
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.599

8.  Inclusion of non-inferiority analysis in superiority-based clinical trials with single-arm, two-stage Simon's design.

Authors:  Miguel Sampayo-Cordero; Bernat Miguel-Huguet; José Pérez-García; David Páez; Ángel L Guerrero-Zotano; Javier Garde-Noguera; Elena Aguirre; Esther Holgado; Elena López-Miranda; Xin Huang; Andrea Malfettone; Antonio Llombart-Cussac; Javier Cortés
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2020-11-28

9.  Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.

Authors:  Thomas Burnett; Pavel Mozgunov; Philip Pallmann; Sofia S Villar; Graham M Wheeler; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 8.775

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.