Dimension of model parameter space and operating characteristics in adaptive dose-finding studies

被引:23
作者
Iasonos, Alexia [1 ]
Wages, Nolan A. [2 ]
Conaway, Mark R. [2 ]
Cheung, Ken [3 ]
Yuan, Ying [4 ]
O'Quigley, John [5 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Univ Virginia, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Div Translat Res & Appl Stat, Charlottesville, VA USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Dept Biostat, New York, NY USA
[4] Univ Texas Austin, Dept Biostat, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[5] Univ Paris 06, LSTA, F-75005 Paris, France
关键词
parameters; continual reassessment method; dose escalation; dose-finding studies; Phase I trials; parsimony; toxicity; CONTINUAL REASSESSMENT METHOD; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DESIGNS; ESCALATION; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1002/sim.6966
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Adaptive, model-based, dose-finding methods, such as the continual reassessment method, have been shown to have good operating characteristics. One school of thought argues in favor of the use of parsimonious models, not modeling all aspects of the problem, and using a strict minimum number of parameters. In particular, for the standard situation of a single homogeneous group, it is common to appeal to a one-parameter model. Other authors argue for a more classical approach that models all aspects of the problem. Here, we show that increasing the dimension of the parameter space, in the context of adaptive dose-finding studies, is usually counter productive and, rather than leading to improvements in operating characteristics, the added dimensionality is likely to result in difficulties. Among these are inconsistency of parameter estimates, lack of coherence in escalation or de-escalation, erratic behavior, getting stuck at the wrong level, and, in almost all cases, poorer performance in terms of correct identification of the targeted dose. Our conclusions are based on both theoretical results and simulations. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:3760 / 3775
页数:16
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   The treatment versus experimentation dilemma in dose finding studies [J].
Azriel, D. ;
Mandel, M. ;
Rinott, Y. .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PLANNING AND INFERENCE, 2011, 141 (08) :2759-2768
[2]   Coherence principles in dose-finding studies [J].
Cheung, YK .
BIOMETRIKA, 2005, 92 (04) :863-873
[3]   A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method [J].
Cheung, YK ;
Chappell, R .
BIOMETRICS, 2002, 58 (03) :671-674
[4]  
Cheung YK, 2011, CHAPMAN HALL CRC BIO
[5]   Unifying CRM and EWOC designs for phase I cancer clinical trials [J].
Chu, Pei-Ling ;
Lin, Yong ;
Shih, Weichung Joe .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PLANNING AND INFERENCE, 2009, 139 (03) :1146-1163
[6]  
Clertant M, 2015, S PHASE 1 METHODOLOG
[7]   Evaluating the performance of copula models in phase I-II clinical trials under model misspecification [J].
Cunanan, Kristen ;
Koopmeiners, Joseph S. .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2014, 14
[8]   Maximum tolerated dose of nalmefene in patients receiving epidural fentanyl and dilute bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia [J].
Dougherty, TB ;
Porche, VH ;
Thall, PF .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2000, 92 (04) :1010-1016
[9]   The Neuroprotection with Statin Therapy for Acute Recovery Trial (NeuSTART): an adaptive design phase I dose-escalation study of high-dose lovastatin in acute ischemic stroke [J].
Elkind, Mitchell S. V. ;
Sacco, Ralph L. ;
MacArthur, Robert B. ;
Fink, Daniel J. ;
Peerschke, Ellinor ;
Andrews, Howard ;
Neils, Greg ;
Stillman, Josh ;
Corporan, Tania ;
Leifer, Dana ;
Cheung, Ken .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2008, 3 (03) :210-218
[10]   BAYESIAN METHODS FOR PHASE-I CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
GATSONIS, C ;
GREENHOUSE, JB .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1992, 11 (10) :1377-1389