Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29516207›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2018

Model-Based Adaptive Optimal Design (MBAOD) Improves Combination Dose Finding Designs: an Example in Oncology.

Philippe B Pierrillas, Sylvain Fouliard, Marylore Chenel, Andrew C Hooker, Lena E Friberg, Mats O Karlsson

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Efficient simulation of clinical target response surfaces.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  5. Optimal control for colistin dosage selection.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2021
    Article
  6. Pharmacometrics meets statistics-A synergy for modern drug development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Philippe B PierrillasPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Box 591, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sylvain FouliardClinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacometrics Division, Servier, Paris, France.
Marylore ChenelClinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacometrics Division, Servier, Paris, France.
Andrew C HookerPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Box 591, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Lena E FribergPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Box 591, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mats O KarlssonPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Box 591, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden. mats.karlsson@farmbio.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Design of phase 1 combination therapy trials is complex compared to single therapy trials. In this work, model-based adaptive optimal design (MBAOD) was exemplified and evaluated for a combination of paclitaxel and a hypothetical new compound in a phase 1 study to determine the best dosing regimen for a phase 2 trial. Neutropenia was assumed as the main toxicity and the dose optimization process targeted a 33% probability of grade 4 neutropenia and maximal efficacy (based on preclinical studies) by changing the dose amount of both drugs and the dosing schedule for the new drug. Different starting conditions (e.g., initial dose), search paths (e.g., maximal change in dose intensity per step), and stopping criteria (e.g., "3 + 3 rule") were explored. The MBAOD approach was successfully implemented allowing the possibility of flexible designs with the modification of doses and dosing schedule throughout the trial. The 3 + 3 rule was shown to be highly conservative (selection of a dosing regimen with at least 90% of the possible maximal efficacy in less than 21% of the cases) but also safer (selection of a toxic design in less than 2% of the cases). Without the 3 + 3 rule, better performance was observed (>67% of selected designs were associated with at least 90% of possible maximal efficacy) while the proportion of DLTs per trial was similar. Overall, MBAOD is a promising tool in the context of dose finding studies of combination treatments and was showed to be flexible enough to be associated with requirements imposed by clinical protocols.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalResearch DesignAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicCohort StudiesDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleHumansNeoplasmsNeutropeniaPaclitaxelTreatment OutcomePaclitaxelcombination therapydose escalationMBAODoncologyrecommended dosing regimen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.