×

Biometric practicesimple benchmark for complex dose finding studies. (English) Zbl 1419.62325

Summary: While a general goal of early phase clinical studies is to identify an acceptable dose for further investigation, modern dose finding studies and designs are highly specific to individual clinical settings. In addition, as outcome-adaptive dose finding methods often involve complex algorithms, it is crucial to have diagnostic tools to evaluate the plausibility of a method’s simulated performance and the adequacy of the algorithm. In this article, we propose a simple technique that provides an upper limit, or a benchmark, of accuracy for dose finding methods for a given design objective. The proposed benchmark is nonparametric optimal in the sense of J. O’Quigley et al. [Biostatistics 3, No. 1, 51–56 (2002; Zbl 1133.62367)], and is demonstrated by examples to be a practical accuracy upper bound for model-based dose finding methods. We illustrate the implementation of the technique in the context of phase I trials that consider multiple toxicities and phase I/II trials where dosing decisions are based on both toxicity and efficacy, and apply the benchmark to several clinical examples considered in the literature. By comparing the operating characteristics of a dose finding method to that of the benchmark, we can form quick initial assessments of whether the method is adequately calibrated and evaluate its sensitivity to the dose-outcome relationships.

MSC:

62P10 Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
92C50 Medical applications (general)

Citations:

Zbl 1133.62367
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Bekele, Dose finding based on multiple toxicities in a soft tissue sarcoma trial, Journal of the American Statistical Association 99 pp 26– (2004) · Zbl 1089.62523 · doi:10.1198/016214504000000043
[2] Braun, Controlled Clinical Trials 23 pp 240– (2002) · doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00205-7
[3] Cheung, Coherence principles in dose finding studies, Biometrika 92 pp 863– (2005) · Zbl 1151.62353 · doi:10.1093/biomet/92.4.863
[4] Cheung, Sequential implementation of stepwise procedures identifying the maximum tolerated dose, Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 pp 1448– (2007) · Zbl 1333.62270 · doi:10.1198/016214507000000699
[5] Cheung, Stochastic approximation and modern model-based designs for dose finding clinical trials, Statistical Science 25 pp 191– (2010) · Zbl 1328.62585 · doi:10.1214/10-STS334
[6] Cheung, Sample size formulae for the Bayesian continual reassessment method, Clinical Trials 10 pp 852– (2013) · doi:10.1177/1740774513497294
[7] Dragalin, Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity response, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 136 pp 1800– (2006) · Zbl 1090.62122 · doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2005.08.005
[8] Durham, A random walk rule for phase I clinical trials, Biometrics 53 pp 745– (1997) · Zbl 0877.62075 · doi:10.2307/2533975
[9] Fleiss, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (2003) · Zbl 1034.62113 · doi:10.1002/0471445428
[10] Houede, Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials, Biometrics 66 pp 532– (2010) · Zbl 1192.62224 · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01302.x
[11] Lee, Continual reassessment method with multiple toxicity constraints, Biostatistics 12 pp 386– (2011) · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxq062
[12] Lee, Toxicity burden score: A novel approach to summarize multiple toxic effects, Annals of Oncology 23 pp 537– (2012) · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr146
[13] Lin, Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials, Biostatistics 2 pp 203– (2001) · Zbl 1097.62565 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/2.2.203
[14] Liu, Sequential designs for logistic phase I clinical trials, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 16 pp 605– (2006) · doi:10.1080/10543400600860337
[15] O’Quigley, Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase I clinical studies in cancer, Biometrics 46 pp 33– (1990) · Zbl 0715.62242 · doi:10.2307/2531628
[16] O’Quigley, Biometrics 57 pp 1018– (2001) · Zbl 1209.62319 · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.01018.x
[17] O’Quigley, Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies, Biostatistics 3 pp 51– (2002) · Zbl 1133.62367 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/3.1.51
[18] Paul, Quantile estimation following non-parametric phase I clinical trials with ordinal response, Statistics in Medicine 23 pp 2483– (2004) · doi:10.1002/sim.1834
[19] Thall, Dose finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs, Biometrics 60 pp 684– (2004) · Zbl 1274.62883 · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00218.x
[20] Thall, A strategy for dose finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials, Biometrics 54 pp 251– (1998) · Zbl 1058.62662 · doi:10.2307/2534012
[21] Yin, Bayesian dose finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios, Biometrics 62 pp 777– (2006) · Zbl 1111.62114 · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00534.x
[22] Yuan, The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: A Bayesian quasi-likelihood approach, Biometrics 63 pp 173– (2007) · Zbl 1124.62084 · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00666.x
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.