Kelley M Kidwell1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA kidwell@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer affects millions of people worldwide each year. Patients require sequences of treatment based on their response to previous treatments to combat cancer and fight metastases. Physicians provide treatment based on clinical characteristics, changing over time. Guidelines for these individualized sequences of treatments are known as dynamic treatment regimens (DTRs) where the initial treatment and subsequent modifications depend on the response to previous treatments, disease progression, and other patient characteristics or behaviors. To provide evidence-based DTRs, the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) has emerged over the past few decades. PURPOSE: To examine and learn from past SMARTs investigating cancer treatment options, to discuss potential limitations preventing the widespread use of SMARTs in cancer research, and to describe courses of action to increase the implementation of SMARTs and collaboration between statisticians and clinicians. CONCLUSION: There have been SMARTs investigating treatment questions in areas of cancer, but the novelty and perceived complexity has limited its use. By building bridges between statisticians and clinicians, clarifying research objectives, and furthering methods work, there should be an increase in SMARTs addressing relevant cancer treatment questions. Within any area of cancer, SMARTs develop DTRs that can guide treatment decisions over the disease history and improve patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Cancer affects millions of people worldwide each year. Patients require sequences of treatment based on their response to previous treatments to combat cancer and fight metastases. Physicians provide treatment based on clinical characteristics, changing over time. Guidelines for these individualized sequences of treatments are known as dynamic treatment regimens (DTRs) where the initial treatment and subsequent modifications depend on the response to previous treatments, disease progression, and other patient characteristics or behaviors. To provide evidence-based DTRs, the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) has emerged over the past few decades. PURPOSE: To examine and learn from past SMARTs investigating cancer treatment options, to discuss potential limitations preventing the widespread use of SMARTs in cancer research, and to describe courses of action to increase the implementation of SMARTs and collaboration between statisticians and clinicians. CONCLUSION: There have been SMARTs investigating treatment questions in areas of cancer, but the novelty and perceived complexity has limited its use. By building bridges between statisticians and clinicians, clarifying research objectives, and furthering methods work, there should be an increase in SMARTs addressing relevant cancer treatment questions. Within any area of cancer, SMARTs develop DTRs that can guide treatment decisions over the disease history and improve patient outcomes.
Authors: Katherine K Matthay; C Patrick Reynolds; Robert C Seeger; Hiroyuki Shimada; E Stanton Adkins; Daphne Haas-Kogan; Robert B Gerbing; Wendy B London; Judith G Villablanca Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter F Thall; Christopher Logothetis; Lance C Pagliaro; Sijin Wen; Melissa A Brown; Dallas Williams; Randall E Millikan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lehana Thabane; Jinhui Ma; Rong Chu; Ji Cheng; Afisi Ismaila; Lorena P Rios; Reid Robson; Marroon Thabane; Lora Giangregorio; Charles H Goldsmith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Lisa J Germeroth; Maria T Benno; Rachel P Kolko Conlon; Rebecca L Emery; Yu Cheng; Jennifer Grace; Rachel H Salk; Michele D Levine Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Elizabeth F Krakow; Michael Hemmer; Tao Wang; Brent Logan; Mukta Arora; Stephen Spellman; Daniel Couriel; Amin Alousi; Joseph Pidala; Michael Last; Silvy Lachance; Erica E M Moodie Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Melissa L Erickson; Jacob M Allen; Daniel P Beavers; Linda M Collins; Karina W Davidson; Kirk I Erickson; Karyn A Esser; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Kerrie L Moreau; Eric B Laber; Charlotte A Peterson; Courtney M Peterson; Jane E Reusch; John P Thyfault; Shawn D Youngstedt; Juleen R Zierath; Bret H Goodpaster; Nathan K LeBrasseur; Thomas W Buford; Lauren M Sparks Journal: Geroscience Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 7.581
Authors: Nicholas J Seewald; Kelley M Kidwell; Inbal Nahum-Shani; Tianshuang Wu; James R McKay; Daniel Almirall Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.021