ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- An overview of the BOIN design and its current extensions for novel early-phase oncology trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Review
- Bayesian optimization for estimating the maximum tolerated dose in Phase I clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Continual reassessment method with regularization in phase I clinical trials.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2020Article
- Coherence principles in interval-based dose finding.Pharmaceutical statistics · 2020Article
- Evaluation of irrational dose assignment definitions using the continual reassessment method.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2019Article
- Evaluating the effects of design parameters on the performances of phase I trial designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Consequences of Performing Parallel Dose Finding Trials in Heterogeneous Groups of Patients.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2019Article
- Combination Lenalidomide and Azacitidine: A Novel Salvage Therapy in Patients Who Relapse After Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Article
- Shift models for dose-finding in partially ordered groups.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2019Article
- The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019Article
- Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Revisiting isotonic phase I design in the era of model-assisted dose-finding.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2018Article
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
Toxicity probability interval designs have received increasing attention as a dose-finding method in recent years. In this study, we compared the two-stage, likelihood-based continual reassessment method (CRM), modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI), and the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN) in order to evaluate each method's performance in dose selection for phase I trials. We use several summary measures to compare the performance of these methods, including percentage of correct selection (PCS) of the true maximum tolerable dose (MTD), allocation of patients to doses at and around the true MTD, and an accuracy index. This index is an efficiency measure that describes the entire distribution of MTD selection and patient allocation by taking into account the distance between the true probability of toxicity at each dose level and the target toxicity rate. The simulation study considered a broad range of toxicity curves and various sample sizes. When considering PCS, we found that CRM outperformed the two competing methods in most scenarios, followed by BOIN, then mTPI. We observed a similar trend when considering the accuracy index for dose allocation, where CRM most often outperformed both mTPI and BOIN. These trends were more pronounced with increasing number of dose levels. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.