Literature DB >> 27090197

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

Alexia Iasonos1, Nolan A Wages2, Mark R Conaway2, Ken Cheung3, Ying Yuan4, John O'Quigley5.   

Abstract

Adaptive, model-based, dose-finding methods, such as the continual reassessment method, have been shown to have good operating characteristics. One school of thought argues in favor of the use of parsimonious models, not modeling all aspects of the problem, and using a strict minimum number of parameters. In particular, for the standard situation of a single homogeneous group, it is common to appeal to a one-parameter model. Other authors argue for a more classical approach that models all aspects of the problem. Here, we show that increasing the dimension of the parameter space, in the context of adaptive dose-finding studies, is usually counter productive and, rather than leading to improvements in operating characteristics, the added dimensionality is likely to result in difficulties. Among these are inconsistency of parameter estimates, lack of coherence in escalation or de-escalation, erratic behavior, getting stuck at the wrong level, and, in almost all cases, poorer performance in terms of correct identification of the targeted dose. Our conclusions are based on both theoretical results and simulations.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Phase I trials; continual reassessment method; dose escalation; dose-finding studies; parameters; parsimony; toxicity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27090197      PMCID: PMC4965325          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6966

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


  22 in total

1.  Dose-finding designs for HIV studies.

Authors:  J O'Quigley; M D Hughes; T Fenton
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  C Gatsonis; J B Greenhouse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  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

4.  A comparison of model choices for the Continual Reassessment Method in phase I cancer trials.

Authors:  X Paoletti; A Kramar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.

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

6.  Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials.

Authors:  S Piantadosi; J D Fisher; S Grossman
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.333

7.  Sequential monitoring of Phase I dose expansion cohorts.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  The Neuroprotection with Statin Therapy for Acute Recovery Trial (NeuSTART): an adaptive design phase I dose-escalation study of high-dose lovastatin in acute ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Robert B MacArthur; Daniel J Fink; Ellinor Peerschke; Howard Andrews; Greg Neils; Josh Stillman; Tania Corporan; Dana Leifer; Ken Cheung
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.266

9.  Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments.

Authors:  J Whitehead; H Brunier
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995 May 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Evaluating the performance of copula models in phase I-II clinical trials under model misspecification.

Authors:  Kristen Cunanan; Joseph S Koopmeiners
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  9 in total

1.  Integrating the escalation and dose expansion studies into a unified Phase I clinical trial.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  A Bayesian dose-finding design incorporating toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.

Authors:  Jun Yin; Rui Qin; Monia Ezzalfani; Daniel J Sargent; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Adaptive dose-finding based on safety and feasibility in early-phase clinical trials of adoptive cell immunotherapy.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Camilo E Fadul
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Coherence principles in interval-based dose finding.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley; Mark R Conaway
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  Phase I clinical trials in adoptive T-cell therapies.

Authors:  Sean M Devlin; Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 1.680

6.  Stopping rules for phase I clinical trials with dose expansion cohorts.

Authors:  Sean M Devlin; Alexia Iasonos; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 2.494

7.  A web tool for designing and conducting phase I trials using the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Nolan A Wages; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  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

9.  Improving safety of the continual reassessment method via a modified allocation rule.

Authors:  Pavel Mozgunov; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 2.373

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.