Literature DB >> 27189672

Utility-based designs for randomized comparative trials with categorical outcomes.

Thomas A Murray1, Peter F Thall2, Ying Yuan2.   

Abstract

A general utility-based testing methodology for design and conduct of randomized comparative clinical trials with categorical outcomes is presented. Numerical utilities of all elementary events are elicited to quantify their desirabilities. These numerical values are used to map the categorical outcome probability vector of each treatment to a mean utility, which is used as a one-dimensional criterion for constructing comparative tests. Bayesian tests are presented, including fixed sample and group sequential procedures, assuming Dirichlet-multinomial models for the priors and likelihoods. Guidelines are provided for establishing priors, eliciting utilities, and specifying hypotheses. Efficient posterior computation is discussed, and algorithms are provided for jointly calibrating test cutoffs and sample size to control overall type I error and achieve specified power. Asymptotic approximations for the power curve are used to initialize the algorithms. The methodology is applied to re-design a completed trial that compared two chemotherapy regimens for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in which an ordinal efficacy outcome was dichotomized, and toxicity was ignored to construct the trial's design. The Bayesian tests also are illustrated by several types of categorical outcomes arising in common clinical settings. Freely available computer software for implementation is provided.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian methods; Dirichlet-multinomial; multiple outcomes; oncology; randomized comparative trials; utility elicitation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27189672      PMCID: PMC5048520          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6989

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


  9 in total

1.  Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues.

Authors:  Abdul J Sankoh; Ralph B D'Agostino; Mohammad F Huque
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies.

Authors:  R H Brook; M R Chassin; A Fink; D H Solomon; J Kosecoff; R E Park
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 3.  Clinical trials with multiple outcomes: a statistical perspective on their design, analysis, and interpretation.

Authors:  S J Pocock
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1997-12

4.  National Cancer Institute-sponsored Working Group guidelines for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: revised guidelines for diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  B D Cheson; J M Bennett; M Grever; N Kay; M J Keating; S O'Brien; K R Rai
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1996-06-15       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  Approached to monitoring the results of long-term disease prevention trials: examples from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  L Freedman; G Anderson; V Kipnis; R Prentice; C Y Wang; J Rossouw; J Wittes; D DeMets
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1996-12

6.  Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data.

Authors:  J Whitehead
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Phase III trial of fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide compared with fludarabine for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: US Intergroup Trial E2997.

Authors:  Ian W Flinn; Donna S Neuberg; Michael R Grever; Gordon W Dewald; John M Bennett; Elisabeth M Paietta; Mohamad A Hussein; Frederick R Appelbaum; Richard A Larson; Dennis F Moore; Martin S Tallman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-02-05       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  COMBINING NONEXCHANGEABLE FUNCTIONAL OR SURVIVAL DATA SOURCES IN ONCOLOGY USING GENERALIZED MIXTURE COMMENSURATE PRIORS.

Authors:  Thomas A Murray; Brian P Hobbs; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 2.083

  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Optimizing natural killer cell doses for heterogeneous cancer patients on the basis of multiple event times.

Authors:  Juhee Lee; Peter F Thall; Katy Rezvani
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.864

2.  Clinical Trial Design as a Decision Problem.

Authors:  Peter Müller; Yanxun Xu; Peter F Thall
Journal:  Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 1.338

3.  A utility-based design for randomized comparative trials with ordinal outcomes and prognostic subgroups.

Authors:  Thomas A Murray; Ying Yuan; Peter F Thall; Joan H Elizondo; Wayne L Hofstetter
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Estimation and Optimization of Composite Outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel J Luckett; Eric B Laber; Siyeon Kim; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Mach Learn Res       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 5.177

5.  Decision-making with multiple correlated binary outcomes in clinical trials.

Authors:  Xynthia Kavelaars; Joris Mulder; Maurits Kaptein
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Yeonhee Park
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-03-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.