Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29179442›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

A Bayesian pick-the-winner design in a randomized phase II clinical trial.

Dung-Tsa Chen, Po-Yu Huang, Hui-Yi Lin, Alberto A Chiappori, Dmitry I Gabrilovich, Eric B Haura, Scott J Antonia, Jhanelle E Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Dung-Tsa ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Po-Yu HuangComputational Intelligence Technology Center, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hui-Yi LinBiostatistics Program, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Alberto A ChiapporiDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Dmitry I GabrilovichTranslational Tumor Immunology, The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eric B HauraDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Scott J AntoniaDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jhanelle E GrayDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHP30CA076292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI KENNETH Lynn WRIGHT · 1998 to 2026
$93.5M
Tumor Microenvironment and MetastasisP30CA010815 · NCI · WISTAR INSTITUTE · PI Luis J Montaner · 1985 to 2026
$75.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA010815NCI NIH HHS P30 CA076292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany phase II clinical trials evaluate unique experimental drugs/combinations through multi-arm design to expedite the screening process (early termination of ineffective drugs) and to identify the most effective drug (pick the winner) to warrant a phase III trial. Various statistical approaches have been developed for the pick-the-winner design but have been criticized for lack of objective comparison among the drug agents.

methodsWe developed a Bayesian pick-the-winner design by integrating a Bayesian posterior probability with Simon two-stage design in a randomized two-arm clinical trial. The Bayesian posterior probability, as the rule to pick the winner, is defined as probability of the response rate in one arm higher than in the other arm. The posterior probability aims to determine the winner when both arms pass the second stage of the Simon two-stage design.

resultsWhen both arms are competitive (i.e., both passing the second stage), the Bayesian posterior probability performs better to correctly identify the winner compared with the Fisher exact test in the simulation study. In comparison to a standard two-arm randomized design, the Bayesian pick-the-winner design has a higher power to determine a clear winner. In application to two studies, the approach is able to perform statistical comparison of two treatment arms and provides a winner probability (Bayesian posterior probability) to statistically justify the winning arm.

conclusionWe developed an integrated design that utilizes Bayesian posterior probability, Simon two-stage design, and randomization into a unique setting. It gives objective comparisons between the arms to determine the winner.

Indexed as

Bayesian posterior probabilitypick the winner designSimon two-stage design

Identifiers

PMID29179442
PMCPMC5687612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.