Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29900666›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics2018

Dose-escalation strategies which use subgroup information.

Amy Cotterill, Thomas Jaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Early phase clinical trials in oncology: Realising the potential of seamless designs.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023
    Article
  4. Innovative trial design in precision oncology.Seminars in cancer biology · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Amy CotterillCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4358-286X
Thomas JakiMedical and Pharmaceutical Statistics Research Unit, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1096-188X

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15958Department of Health CDF-2010-03-16Department of Health SRF-2015-08-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dose-escalation trials commonly assume a homogeneous trial population to identify a single recommended dose of the experimental treatment for use in future trials. Wrongly assuming a homogeneous population can lead to a diluted treatment effect. Equally, exclusion of a subgroup that could in fact benefit from the treatment can cause a beneficial treatment effect to be missed. Accounting for a potential subgroup effect (ie, difference in reaction to the treatment between subgroups) in dose-escalation can increase the chance of finding the treatment to be efficacious in a larger patient population. A standard Bayesian model-based method of dose-escalation is extended to account for a subgroup effect by including covariates for subgroup membership in the dose-toxicity model. A stratified design performs well but uses available data inefficiently and makes no inferences concerning presence of a subgroup effect. A hypothesis test could potentially rectify this problem but the small sample sizes result in a low-powered test. As an alternative, the use of spike and slab priors for variable selection is proposed. This method continually assesses the presence of a subgroup effect, enabling efficient use of the available trial data throughout escalation and in identifying the recommended dose(s). A simulation study, based on real trial data, was conducted and this design was found to be both promising and feasible.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignBayes TheoremClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansSample SizeBayesian model-based methoddose-escalationspike and slabsubgroup effect

Identifiers

PMID29900666
PMCPMC6175353

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.