Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22547420›Full record

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.

Emily M Van Meter, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. 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
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.

Emily M Van MeterDivision of Cancer Biostatistics, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. emily.vanmeter@uky.edu
Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
Dipankar Bandyopadhyay

Funding

Translational Science Laboratory Shared ResourceP30CA138313 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI Jian Ouyang · 2009 to 2026
$42.7M
Robust spatial models for clustered periodontal dataR03DE021762 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BANDYOPADHYAY, DIPANKAR, REICH, BRIAN J. · 2011 to 2012
$305k
Robust nonparametric methods with variable selection for clustered dental dataR03DE020114 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BANDYOPADHYAY, DIPANKAR, CAI, BO · 2010 to 2011
$299k
Robust Transition Models for the Analysis of Longitudinal Drinking OutcomesR03AA020648 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BANDYOPADHYAY, DIPANKAR, DESANTIS, STACIA · 2011 to 2012
$160k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138313NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138313-01NIAAA NIH HHS R03 AA020648NIDCR NIH HHS R03 DE020114NIDCR NIH HHS R03-DE020114NIDCR NIH HHS R03 DE021762NIDCR NIH HHS R03DE021762NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS480007-01A1
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsMaximum Tolerated DoseClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansModels, TheoreticalResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID22547420
PMCPMC5531273

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.