ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Hierarchical Composite Endpoints for Dose Optimization in Early Phase Oncology Trials.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The FDA-initiated Project Optimus has emphasized the need for dose optimization (DO) in oncology drug development, moving beyond the traditional maximum tolerated dose paradigm. Evaluating the balance of benefit and risk is central to DO. In this paper, we propose a novel benefit-risk assessment framework for DO in early-phase oncology trials, utilizing hierarchical composite endpoints (HCEs). The HCE approach enables integration of multiple endpoints within a clinically prioritized hierarchy. Generalized pairwise comparison is then used to compare patient outcomes across candidate dose levels in DO cohorts, providing interpretable metrics to guide dose selection. Our method addresses key practical challenges of existing methods by enabling straightforward, qualitative clinical inputs and integrating various DO-related evidence. The framework also supports uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis to ensure robust assessment. Additionally, we extend the HCE method to incorporate pharmacokinetic data through a probabilistic index model, allowing drug exposure to support dose selection. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance in selecting optimal doses compared to utility-score-based methods, particularly in scenarios requiring careful balancing of efficacy and safety. Application to real-world trial data for DO in HER-2 positive nonsmall cell lung cancer further illustrates the method's practical utility and robustness.
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.