Trial reportPharmaceutical statistics2022
SCI: A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II dose-finding design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials.
Trial report in Pharmaceutical statistics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- SCI: A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II dose-finding design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials.Pharmaceutical statistics · 2022Trial
- Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- A Bayesian adaptive biomarker stratified phase II randomized clinical trial design for radiotherapies with competing risk survival outcomes.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024Article
- REFINE-Lung implements a novel multi-arm randomised trial design to address possible immunotherapy overtreatment.The Lancet. Oncology · 2023Review
- Modified isotonic regression based phase I/II clinical trial design identifying optimal biological dose.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An immunotherapy trial often uses the phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose, which monitors the efficacy and toxicity outcomes simultaneously in a single trial. The progression-free survival rate is often used as the efficacy outcome in phase I/II immunotherapy trials. As a result, patients developing disease progression in phase I/II immunotherapy trials are generally seriously ill and are often treated off the trial for ethical consideration. Consequently, the happening of disease progression will terminate the toxicity event but not vice versa, so the issue of the semi-competing risks arises. Moreover, this issue can become more intractable with the late-onset outcomes, which happens when a relatively long follow-up time is required to ascertain progression-free survival. This paper proposes a novel Bayesian adaptive phase I/II design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials, referred to as the dose-finding design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials (SCI) design. To tackle the issue of the semi-competing risks in the presence of late-onset outcomes, we re-construct the likelihood function based on each patient's actual follow-up time and develop a data augmentation method to efficiently draw posterior samples from a series of Beta-binomial distributions. We propose a concise curve-free dose-finding algorithm to adaptively identify the optimal biological dose using accumulated data without making any parametric dose-response assumptions. Numerical studies show that the proposed SCI design yields good operating characteristics in dose selection, patient allocation, and trial duration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.