Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30799777›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2020

A latent variable model for improving inference in trials assessing the effect of dose on toxicity and composite efficacy endpoints.

James Ms Wason, Shaun R Seaman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Augmented binary method for basket trials (ABBA).Statistical methods in medical research · 2026
    Article
  2. 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.

James Ms WasonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4691-126X
Shaun R SeamanMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18113Cancer Research UK A18113Medical Research Council MC_UP_1302/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/10Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is often of interest to explore how dose affects the toxicity and efficacy properties of a novel treatment. In oncology, efficacy is often assessed through response, which is defined by a patient having no new tumour lesions and their tumour size shrinking by 30%. Usually response and toxicity are analysed as binary outcomes in early phase trials. Methods have been proposed to improve the efficiency of analysing response by utilising the continuous tumour size information instead of dichotomising it. However, these methods do not allow for toxicity or for different doses. Motivated by a phase II trial testing multiple doses of a treatment against placebo, we propose a latent variable model that can estimate the probability of response and no toxicity (or other related outcomes) for different doses. We assess the confidence interval coverage and efficiency properties of the method, compared to methods that do not use the continuous tumour size, in a simulation study and the real study. The coverage is close to nominal when model assumptions are met, although can be below nominal when the model is misspecified. Compared to methods that treat response as binary, the method has confidence intervals with 30-50% narrower widths. The method adds considerable efficiency but care must be taken that the model assumptions are reasonable.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicHumansIndolesMedical OncologyNeoplasmsQuinazolinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntineoplastic AgentscediranibIndolesQuinazolinesAugmented binary methodcomposite endpointsefficacy/toxicityphase I/II

Identifiers

PMID30799777
PMCPMC6986906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.