ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Seamless Phase I-II Cancer Clinical Trials Using Kernel-Based Covariate Similarity.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Project Optimus, a paradigm shift is underway in the design of early-phase oncology trials. To accelerate drug development, seamless Phase I/II designs have gained increasing attention, along with growing interest in the efficient reuse of Phase I data. We propose a nonparametric information-borrowing method that adaptively discounts Phase I observations according to the similarity of covariate distributions between Phase I and Phase II. Similarity is quantified using a kernel-based maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) and transformed into a dose-specific weight incorporated into a power-prior framework for Phase II efficacy evaluation, such as for the objective response rate (ORR). Considering the small sample sizes typical of early-phase oncology studies, we analytically derive a confidence interval for the weight, enabling assessment of borrowing precision without resampling procedures. Simulation studies under four toxicity scenarios and five baseline-covariate settings showed that the proposed method improved the probability that the lower bound of the 95% credible interval for ORR exceeded a prespecified threshold at efficacious doses, while avoiding false threshold crossings at weakly efficacious doses. A case study based on a metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma trial illustrates the resulting borrowing weights and posterior estimates.
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.