Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35385345›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2022

Optimal Sequential Predictive Probability Designs for Early-Phase Oncology Expansion Cohorts.

Emily C Zabor, Alexander M Kaizer, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Brian P Hobbs

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily C ZaborDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences & Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.ORCID 0000-0002-1402-4498
Alexander M KaizerDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO.ORCID 0000-0003-2334-5514
Elizabeth Garrett-MayerDivision of Biostatistics and Research Data Governance, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.ORCID 0000-0003-4709-0333
Brian P HobbsDepartment of Population Health, University of Texas-Austin, Austin, TX.ORCID 0000-0003-2189-5846
American Society of Clinical Oncology · USCleveland Clinic · USColorado School of Public Health · US

Funding

Statistical Methods and Adaptive Trial Designs for Cardiovascular Outcomes with Information SharingK01HL151754 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KAIZER, ALEXANDER MARK · 2021 to 2025
$742k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL151754
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe customary approach to early-phase clinical trial design, where the focus is on identification of the maximum tolerated dose, is not always suitable for noncytotoxic or other targeted therapies. Many trials have continued to follow the 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, but with the addition of phase I dose-expansion cohorts to further characterize safety and assess efficacy. Dose-expansion cohorts are not always planned in advance nor rigorously designed. We introduce an approach to the design of phase I expansion cohorts on the basis of sequential predictive probability monitoring.

methodsTwo optimization criteria are proposed that allow investigators to stop for futility to preserve limited resources while maintaining traditional control of type I and type II errors. We demonstrate the use of these designs through simulation, and we elucidate their implementation with a redesign of the phase I expansion cohort for atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

resultsA sequential predictive probability design outperforms Simon's two-stage designs and posterior probability monitoring with respect to both proposed optimization criteria. The Bayesian sequential predictive probability design yields increased power while significantly reducing the average sample size under the null hypothesis in the context of the case study, whereas the original study design yields too low type I error and power. The optimal efficiency design tended to have more desirable properties, subject to constraints on type I error and power, compared with the optimal accuracy design.

conclusionThe optimal efficiency design allows investigators to preserve limited financial resources and to maintain ethical standards by halting potentially large dose-expansion cohorts early in the absence of promising efficacy results, while maintaining traditional control of type I and II error rates.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBayes TheoremHumansMedical OncologyProbability

Identifiers

PMID35385345
PMCPMC9200384
OpenAlexW4223530202

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.