Literature DB >> 25071878

Bridging Solutions in Dose Finding Problems.

John O'Quigley1, Alexia Iasonos2.   

Abstract

The idea of bridging in dose-finding studies is closely linked to the problem of group heterogeneity. There are some distinctive features in the case of bridging which need to be considered if efficient estimation of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is to be accomplished. The case of two distinct populations is considered. In the bridging setting we usually have in mind two studies, corresponding to the two populations. In some cases, the first of these studies may have been completed while the second has yet to be initiated. In other cases, the studies take place simultaneously and information can then be shared among the two groups. The methodological problem is how to make most use of the information gained in the first study to help improve efficiency in the second. We describe the models that we can use for the purpose of bridging and study situations in which their use leads to overall improvements in performance as well as cases where there is no gain when compared to carrying out parallel studies. Simulations and an example in pediatric oncology help to provide further insight.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bridging; Calibration; Clinical trials; Continual Reassessment Method; Dose escalation; Dose finding studies; Pediatric trials; Pharmacokinetics; Phase 1 trials; Toxicity

Year:  2014        PMID: 25071878      PMCID: PMC4111208          DOI: 10.1080/19466315.2014.906365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res        ISSN: 1946-6315            Impact factor:   1.452


  7 in total

1.  Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements.

Authors:  S Piantadosi; G Liu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Dose-response curve estimation: a semiparametric mixture approach.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 2.571

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.  Two-sample continual reassessment method.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; L Z Shen; A Gamst
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.051

6.  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

7.  Dose finding and O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase study of cisplatin combined with temozolomide in paediatric solid malignancies.

Authors:  B Geoerger; G Vassal; F Doz; J O'Quigley; M Wartelle; A J Watson; M-A Raquin; D Frappaz; P Chastagner; J-C Gentet; H Rubie; D Couanet; A Geoffray; L Djafari; G P Margison; F Pein
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-09-05       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total
  15 in total

1.  Isotonic designs for phase I trials in partially ordered groups.

Authors:  Mark Conaway
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Bethany Jablonski Horton; Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Identifying a maximum tolerated contour in two-dimensional dose finding.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Paul W Read; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  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

6.  A design for phase I trials in completely or partially ordered groups.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Designs for phase I trials in ordered groups.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway; Nolan A Wages
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Clinical trials: Early phase clinical trials-are dose expansion cohorts needed?

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 66.675

9.  Shift models for dose-finding in partially ordered groups.

Authors:  Bethany Jablonski Horton; Nolan A Wages; Mark R Conaway
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 10.  Innovations for phase I dose-finding designs in pediatric oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Adelaide Doussau; Birgit Geoerger; Irene Jiménez; Xavier Paoletti
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.