ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2011
Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose Finding in Oncology Trials Guided by Ordinal Toxicity Grades Using Continuous Dose Levels.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Phase I clinical trial designs in oncology: A systematic literature review from 2020 to 2022.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Modeling synergism in early phase cancer trials with drug combination with continuous dose levels: is there an added value?Brazilian journal of biometrics · 2022Article
- Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- A Bayesian Adaptive Design in Cancer Phase I Trials Using Dose Combinations with Ordinal Toxicity Grades.Stats · 2020Article
- How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- A robust Bayesian dose-finding design for phase I/II clinical trials.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- A decision-theoretic phase I-II design for ordinal outcomes in two cycles.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016Review
- Seamless Phase I/II Adaptive Design for Oncology Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2015Article
- Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013Article
- Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method.Statistics in medicine · 2012Article
- Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.