Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21835856›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2011

Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.

Alexia Iasonos, Sarah Zohar, John O'Quigley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexia IasonosDepartment of Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA. iasonosa@mskcc.org
Sarah Zohar
John O'Quigley

Funding

Designs for phase I trials of combinations of agentsR01CA142859 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI CONAWAY, MARK R · 2010 to 2017
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA142859NCI NIH HHS R01 CA142859
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundToxicity grades underlie the definition of a dose-limiting toxicity but in the majority of phase I designs, the information contained in the individual grades is not used. Some authors have argued that it may be more appropriate to consider a polytomous rather than dichotomous response. PURPOSE: We investigate whether the added information on individual grades can improve the operating characteristics of the continual reassessment method.

methodsWe compare the original continual reassessment method design for a binary response with two stage continual reassessment method designs which make different use of lower grade toxicity information via simulations. Specifically, we study a two-stage design that utilizes lower grade toxicities in the first stage only, during the initial non-model-based escalation, and two-stage designs where lower grades are used throughout the trial via explicit models. We postulate a model relating the rates of lower grade toxicities to the rate of dose-limiting toxicity, or assume the relative rates of low-to-high grade toxicities is unknown. The designs were compared in terms of accuracy, patient allocation, and precision.

resultsSignificant gains can be achieved when using grades in the first stage of a two-stage design. Otherwise, only modest improvements are seen when the information on grades is exploited via the use of explicit models, where the parameters are known precisely. Continual reassessment method with some use of grade information, increases the number of patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose by approximately 5%. The additional information from lower grades can lead to a small increase in the precision of our estimate of the maximum tolerated dose. LIMITATIONS: Our comparisons are not exhaustive and it would be worth studying other models and situations.

conclusionsAlthough the gains in performance were not as great as we had hoped, we observed no cases where the performance of continual reassessment method was poorer. Our recommendation is that investigators might consider using graded toxicities at the design stage.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugResearch DesignToxicity TestsClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicComputer SimulationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMaximum Tolerated Dose

Identifiers

PMID21835856
PMCPMC3293181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.