Literature DB >> 28323532

Comparing three regularization methods to avoid extreme allocation probability in response-adaptive randomization.

Yining Du1, John D Cook2, J Jack Lee3.   

Abstract

We examine three variations of the regularization methods for response-adaptive randomization (RAR) and compare their operating characteristics. A power transformation (PT) is applied to refine the randomization probability. The clip method is used to bound the randomization probability within specified limits. A burn-in period of equal randomization (ER) can be added before adaptive randomization (AR). For each method, more patients are assigned to the superior arm and overall response rate increase as the scheme approximates simple AR, while statistical power increases as it approximates ER. We evaluate the performance of the three methods by varying the tuning parameter to control the extent of AR to achieve the same statistical power. When there is no early stopping rule, PT method generally performed the best in yielding higher proportion to the superior arm and higher overall response rate, but with larger variability. The burn-in method showed smallest variability compared with the clip method and the PT method. With the efficacy early stopping rule, all three methods performed more similarly. The PT and clip methods are better than the burn-in method in achieving higher proportion randomized to the superior arm and higher overall response rate but burn-in method required fewer patients in the trial. By carefully choosing the method and the tuning parameter, RAR methods can be tailored to strike a balance between achieving the desired statistical power and enhancing the overall response rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian methods; clinical trial design; early stopping; operating characteristics

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28323532      PMCID: PMC6376973          DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2017.1293077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  15 in total

Review 1.  Adaptive randomization for clinical trials.

Authors:  William F Rosenberger; Oleksandr Sverdlov; Feifang Hu
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 2.  Review of draft FDA adaptive design guidance.

Authors:  Thomas Cook; David L DeMets
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.051

3.  Rejoinder.

Authors:  Spencer Phillips Hey; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 4.  Randomized phase II designs in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions.

Authors:  J Jack Lee; Lei Feng
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Outcome--adaptive randomization: is it useful?

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials.

Authors:  Peter F Thall; J Kyle Wathen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Worth adapting? Revisiting the usefulness of outcome-adaptive randomization.

Authors:  J Jack Lee; Nan Chen; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman.

Authors:  J Jack Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  A comparison of Bayesian adaptive randomization and multi-stage designs for multi-arm clinical trials.

Authors:  James M S Wason; Lorenzo Trippa
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Adaptive design methods in clinical trials - a review.

Authors:  Shein-Chung Chow; Mark Chang
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2008-05-02       Impact factor: 4.123

View more
  1 in total

1.  Bayesian clinical trials at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: An update.

Authors:  Rebecca S Slack Tidwell; S Andrew Peng; Minxing Chen; Diane D Liu; Ying Yuan; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 2.486

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.