REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors

被引:0
|
作者
Yang, Cheng-Han [1 ]
Kwiatkowski, Evan [1 ]
Lee, J. Jack [2 ]
Lin, Ruitao [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX USA
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Bayesian methods; dose optimization; meta-analysis; phase I/II trial; spike-and-slab prior; OF-FIT TESTS; MODELS; CALIBRATION;
D O I
10.1002/sim.10107
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The rise of cutting-edge precision cancer treatments has led to a growing significance of the optimal biological dose (OBD) in modern oncology trials. These trials now prioritize the consideration of both toxicity and efficacy simultaneously when determining the most desirable dosage for treatment. Traditional approaches in early-phase oncology trials have conventionally relied on the assumption of a monotone relationship between treatment efficacy and dosage. However, this assumption may not hold valid for novel oncology therapies. In reality, the dose-efficacy curve of such treatments may reach a plateau at a specific dose, posing challenges for conventional methods in accurately identifying the OBD. Furthermore, achieving reliable identification of the OBD is typically not possible based on a single small-sample trial. With data from multiple phase I and phase I/II trials, we propose a novel Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis (REDOMA) approach to identify the OBD by synthesizing toxicity and efficacy data from each trial. The REDOMA method can address trials with heterogeneous characteristics. We adopt a curve-free approach based on a Gamma process prior to model the average dose-toxicity relationship. In addition, we utilize a Bayesian model selection framework that uses the spike-and-slab prior as an automatic variable selection technique to eliminate monotonic constraints on the dose-efficacy curve. The good performance of the REDOMA method is confirmed by extensive simulation studies.
引用
收藏
页码:3484 / 3502
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis
    Hedges, LV
    Vevea, JL
    PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1998, 3 (04) : 486 - 504
  • [32] The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models
    Ades, AE
    Lu, G
    Higgins, JPT
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2005, 25 (06) : 646 - 654
  • [33] Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis
    Knapp, G
    Biggerstaff, BJ
    Hartung, J
    BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 48 (02) : 271 - 285
  • [34] A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Thompson, Simon G.
    Spiegelhalter, David J.
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2009, 172 : 137 - 159
  • [35] Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis
    Hall, SM
    Brannick, MT
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 87 (02) : 377 - 389
  • [36] Heterogeneity and study size in random-effects meta-analysis
    Bowater, Russell J.
    Escarela, Gabriel
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2013, 40 (01) : 2 - 16
  • [37] Comments on 'Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis'
    Imberger, Georgina
    Gluud, Christian
    Wetterslev, Jorn
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 30 (24) : 2965 - 2966
  • [38] Random-effects meta-analysis: the number of studies matters
    Guolo, Annamaria
    Varin, Cristiano
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2017, 26 (03) : 1500 - 1518
  • [39] metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis
    Harris, Ross J.
    Bradburn, Michael J.
    Deeks, Jonathan J.
    Harbord, Roger M.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    STATA JOURNAL, 2008, 8 (01): : 3 - 28
  • [40] Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Inconsistent Effects: A Time for Change
    Cornell, John E.
    Mulrow, Cynthia D.
    Localio, Russell
    Stack, Catharine B.
    Meibohm, Anne R.
    Guallar, Eliseo
    Goodman, Steven N.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2014, 160 (04) : 267 - 270