Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36864387›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

A clinical phase I dose-finding design with adaptive shrinking boundaries for drug combination trials.

Zhaohang Li, Ze Xu, Aijun Zhang, Guanpeng Qi, Zuojing Li

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Zhaohang LiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Informatics, Academy of Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Ze XuDepartment of Pharmaceutical Informatics, Academy of Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Aijun ZhangDepartment of Pharmaceutical Informatics, Academy of Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Guanpeng QiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Informatics, Academy of Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Zuojing LiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Informatics, Academy of Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China. zuojing1006@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombinations of drugs are becoming increasingly common in oncology treatment. In some cases, patients can benefit from the interaction between two drugs, although there is usually a higher risk of developing toxicity. Due to drug-drug interactions, multidrug combinations often exhibit different toxicity profiles than those of single drugs, leading to a complex trial scenario. Numerous methods have been proposed for the design of phase I drug combination trials. For example, the two-dimensional Bayesian optimal interval design for combination drug (BOINcomb) is simple to implement and has desirable performance. However, in scenarios where the lowest and starting dose is close to being toxic, the BOINcomb design may tend to allocate more patients to overly toxic doses, and select an overly toxic dose combination as the maximum tolerated dose combination.

methodTo improve the performance of BOINcomb in the above extreme scenarios, we widen the range of variation of the boundaries by setting the self-shrinking dose escalation and de-escalation boundaries. We refer to the new design as adaptive shrinking Bayesian optimal interval design for combination drug (asBOINcomb). We conduct a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the proposed design using a real clinical trial example.

resultsOur simulation results show that asBOINcomb is more accurate and stable than BOINcomb, especially in some extreme scenarios. Specifically, in all ten scenarios, the percentage of correct selection is higher than the BOINcomb design within 30 to 60 patients.

conclusionThe proposed asBOINcomb design is transparent and simple to implement and can reduce the trial sample size while maintaining accuracy compared with the BOINcomb design.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyResearch DesignBayes TheoremClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicComputer SimulationHumansMaximum Tolerated DoseBayesian adaptive dose-finding designDose escalationDrug combinationModel-assisted designPhase I clinical trial design

Identifiers

PMID36864387
PMCPMC9979534

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.