ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
A Bayesian dose-finding design incorporating toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges, opportunities, and innovative statistical designs for precision oncology trials.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Trial
- PRO-ADD: Patient-empowered dose-finding trials integrating safety, preliminary efficacy and patient-reported outcomes for optimal dose selection.Statistical methods in medical research · 2026Article
- Real-World Evidence of Treatment Outcomes in Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Mixed Effects and Competitive Risk Approach.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Dose finding studies for therapies with late-onset toxicities: A comparison study of designs.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- A Road Map for Designing Phase I Clinical Trials of Radiotherapy-Novel Agent Combinations.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Review
- Innovative trial design in precision oncology.Seminars in cancer biology · 2022Review
- Seamless phase I/II design for novel anticancer agents with competing disease progression.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- phase1RMD: An R package for repeated measures dose-finding designs with novel toxicity and efficacy endpoints.PloS one · 2021Article
- An adaptive multi-stage phase I dose-finding design incorporating continuous efficacy and toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2019Article
- Repeated measures dose-finding design with time-trend detection in the presence of correlated toxicity data.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2017Article
- Challenges and Innovations in Phase I Dose-Finding Designs for Molecularly Targeted Agents and Cancer Immunotherapies.Journal of biometrics & biostatistics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phase I oncology trials are designed to identify a safe dose with an acceptable toxicity profile. The dose is typically determined based on the probability of severe toxicity observed during the first treatment cycle, although patients continue to receive treatment for multiple cycles. In addition, the toxicity data from multiple types and grades are typically summarized into a single binary outcome of dose-limiting toxicity. A novel endpoint, the total toxicity profile, was previously developed to account for the multiple toxicity types and grades. In this work, we propose to account for longitudinal repeated measures of total toxicity profile over multiple treatment cycles, accounting for cumulative toxicity during dosing-finding. A linear mixed model was utilized in the Bayesian framework, with addition of Bayesian risk functions for decision-making in dose assignment. The performance of this design is evaluated using simulation studies and compared with the previously proposed quasi-likelihood continual reassessment method (QLCRM) design. Twelve clinical scenarios incorporating four different locations of maximum tolerated dose and three different time trends (decreasing, increasing, and no effect) were investigated. The proposed repeated measures design was comparable with the QLCRM when only cycle 1 data were utilized in dose-finding; however, it demonstrated an improvement over the QLCRM when data from multiple cycles were used across all scenarios. 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.