Literature DB >> 29534298

Motivating sample sizes in adaptive Phase I trials via Bayesian posterior credible intervals.

Thomas M Braun1.   

Abstract

In contrast with typical Phase III clinical trials, there is little existing methodology for determining the appropriate numbers of patients to enroll in adaptive Phase I trials. And, as stated by Dennis Lindley in a more general context, "[t]he simple practical question of 'What size of sample should I take' is often posed to a statistician, and it is a question that is embarrassingly difficult to answer." Historically, simulation has been the primary option for determining sample sizes for adaptive Phase I trials, and although useful, can be problematic and time-consuming when a sample size is needed relatively quickly. We propose a computationally fast and simple approach that uses Beta distributions to approximate the posterior distributions of DLT rates of each dose and determines an appropriate sample size through posterior coverage rates. We provide sample sizes produced by our methods for a vast number of realistic Phase I trial settings and demonstrate that our sample sizes are generally larger than those produced by a competing approach that is based upon the nonparametric optimal design.
© 2018, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continual reassessment method; Dose-finding; Dose-limiting toxicity; Maximum tolerated dose

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29534298      PMCID: PMC9109046          DOI: 10.1111/biom.12872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   1.701


  24 in total

1.  Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies.

Authors:  John O'Quigley; Xavier Paoletti; Jean Maccario
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Ying Kuen Cheung; Rick Chappell
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Prior Effective Sample Size in Conditionally Independent Hierarchical Models.

Authors:  Satoshi Morita; Peter F Thall; Peter Müller
Journal:  Bayesian Anal       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.728

4.  Calibration of prior variance in the Bayesian continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Shing M Lee; Ying Kuen Cheung
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

6.  Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  B E Storer
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  N Ishizuka; Y Ohashi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001 Sep 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities.

Authors:  Y K Cheung; R Chappell
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A product of independent beta probabilities dose escalation design for dual-agent phase I trials.

Authors:  Adrian P Mander; Michael J Sweeting
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  2 in total

1.  A simulation-free approach to assessing the performance of the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  Thomas M Braun
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  Designing Dose-Finding Phase I Clinical Trials: Top 10 Questions That Should Be Discussed With Your Statistician.

Authors:  Shing M Lee; Nolan A Wages; Karyn A Goodman; A Craig Lockhart
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-02-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.