Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35263169›Full record

ReviewJCO precision oncology2022

Comparative Study of Bayesian Information Borrowing Methods in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Liwen Su, Xin Chen, Jingyi Zhang, Fangrong Yan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bayesian statistics for clinical research.Lancet (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Liwen SuResearch Center of Biostatistics and Computational Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1332-455X
Xin ChenResearch Center of Biostatistics and Computational Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Jingyi ZhangResearch Center of Biostatistics and Computational Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Fangrong YanResearch Center of Biostatistics and Computational Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3347-5021

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWith deeper insight into precision medicine, more innovative oncology trial designs have been proposed to contribute to the characteristics of novel antitumor drugs. Bayesian information borrowing is an indispensable part of these designs, which shows great advantages in improving the efficiency of clinical trials. Bayesian methods provide an effective framework when incorporating information. However, the key point lies in how to choose an appropriate method for complex oncology clinical trials.

methodsWe divided the borrowing information scenarios into concurrent and nonconcurrent scenarios according to whether the data to be borrowed are observed at the same time as in the current trial or not. Then, we provided an overview of the methods in each scenario. Performance comparison of different methods is carried out with regard to the type I error and power.

resultsAs demonstrated by the simulation results in each borrowing scenario, the Bayesian hierarchical model and its extensions are more appropriate for concurrent borrowing. The simulation results demonstrate that the Bayesian hierarchical model shows great advantages when the arms are homogeneous. However, such a method should be adopted with caution when heterogeneity exists. We recommend the other methods, considering heterogeneity. Borrow information from informative priors is more suggested for nonconcurrent borrowing scenarios. Multisource exchangeability models are more suitable for multiple historical trials, while meta-analytic-predictive prior should be carefully applied.

conclusionBayesian information borrowing is useful and can improve the efficiency of clinical trial designs. However, we should carefully choose an appropriate information borrowing method when facing a practical innovative oncology trial, as an appropriate method is essential to provide ideal design performance.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsBayes TheoremClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35263169
PMCPMC8926037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.