ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2012
Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized phase 3 trial comparing paclitaxel plus 5-fluorouracil versus cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil in Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma-the ESO-shanghai 1 trial protocol.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Trial
- [A Phase I/II Study of Chemotherapy Concurrent with Twice-daily Radiotherapy Schedules by Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Limited-stage Small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2017Trial
- The Correlated Beta Dose Optimisation Approach: Optimal Vaccine Dosing Using Mathematical Modelling and Adaptive Trial Design.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Mathematical Modelling for Optimal Vaccine Dose Finding: Maximising Efficacy and Minimising Toxicity.Vaccines · 2022Article
- A Bayesian dose-finding design for outcomes evaluated with uncertainty.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Proportional odds assumption for modeling longitudinal ordinal multiple toxicity outcomes in dose finding studies of targeted agents: A pooled analysis of 54 studies.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Article
- [Application of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2019Article
- Dose-finding designs for cumulative toxicities using multiple constraints.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- An adaptive dose-finding design based on both safety and immunologic responses in cancer clinical trials.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2018Article
- [Phase I Study of Etoposide and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Dose Escalation with Concurrent Twice-daily Radiotherapy for Patients with Limited-stage Small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2017Article
- Gross tumor volume is the prognostic factor for squamous cell esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- 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
- The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a bayesian model selection approach.PloS one · 2014Article
- Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013Article
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
backgroundVarious dose-finding clinical trial designs, including the continual reassessment method (CRM), dichotomize toxicity outcomes based on prespecified dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) criteria. This loss of toxicity information is particularly inefficient due to the small sample sizes in phase I trials, especially when Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v4.0) are an established ordinal toxicity grading classification already used in the clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this simulation study is to incorporate ordinal toxicity grades as specified by CTCAE v4.0 using a continuation ratio (CR) model in the likelihood-based CRM.
methodsThis simulation study compares the CR model design to the dichotomous CRM as well as an ordinal CRM that implements the proportional odds (PO) model. We compare six scenarios for model performance based on various safety and efficiency criteria and consider a range of dose-toxicity relationship models, including CR models, PO models, and models that violate the PO assumption.
resultsThe ordinal CRM performs as well as the dichotomous CRM in all scenarios considered, especially in situations where the starting dose is overly toxic, the ordinal designs show slight improvement in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and fewer median patients exposed to excessively toxic dose levels as compared to the binary CRM. We also find slight discrepancies in the performance between the PO model and CR model; however, the differences were not substantial enough to strongly recommend one model over the other. LIMITATIONS: The CR model design does require slightly more input from clinical investigators prior to the start of the trial as compared to the dichotomous CRM. Investigators must specify the distribution of toxicity grades at the expected dose levels for a 10% and 90% DLT rate in this CR design. However, an R package will help with the implementation of this ordinal design.
conclusionsWhile the ordinal designs did not perform significantly better than the binary counterpart, we were able to incorporate maximal toxicity information available into a feasible dose-finding design without compromising overall design performance.
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.