Volume 64, Issue 4

Patient‐Specific Dose Finding Based on Bivariate Outcomes and Covariates

Elihu H. Estey

Leukemia, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 24 November 2008
Citations: 47

Abstract

Summary A Bayesian sequential dose‐finding procedure based on bivariate (efficacy, toxicity) outcomes that accounts for patient covariates and dose‐covariate interactions is presented. Historical data are used to obtain an informative prior on covariate main effects, with uninformative priors assumed for all dose effect parameters. Elicited limits on the probabilities of efficacy and toxicity for each of a representative set of covariate vectors are used to construct bounding functions that determine the acceptability of each dose for each patient. Elicited outcome probability pairs that are equally desirable for a reference patient are used to define two different posterior criteria, either of which may be used to select an optimal covariate‐specific dose for each patient. Because the dose selection criteria are covariate specific, different patients may receive different doses at the same point in the trial, and the set of eligible patients may change adaptively during the trial. The method is illustrated by a dose‐finding trial in acute leukemia, including a simulation study.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 47

  • Pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer of performance status 2 (PePS2): a single arm, phase 2 trial, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30033-3, (2020).
  • A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II clinical trial design with late‐onset competing risk outcomes, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.13347, 0, 0, (2020).
  • Estimating individualized treatment rules with risk constraint, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.13232, 0, 0, (2020).
  • A dose-finding approach for genomic patterns in phase I trials, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2020.1744619, (1-20), (2020).
  • Designs Considering Toxicity and Efficacy, Dose-Finding Designs for Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trials, 10.1007/978-4-431-55585-8_5, (95-120), (2019).
  • Bayesian uncertainty‐directed dose finding designs, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12355, 68, 5, (1393-1410), (2019).
  • A Phase II Clinical Trial Design for Associated Co-primary Efficacy and Toxicity Outcomes with Baseline Covariates, Bayesian Statistics and New Generations, 10.1007/978-3-030-30611-3_13, (125-133), (2019).
  • Health effects of sanitation facilities: a Bayesian semiparametric analysis of compositional data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12339, 68, 4, (1149-1166), (2019).
  • Analysing a quality‐of‐life survey by using a coclustering model for ordinal data and some dynamic implications, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12365, 68, 5, (1327-1349), (2019).
  • State space models for non‐stationary intermittently coupled systems: an application to the North Atlantic oscillation, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12354, 68, 5, (1259-1280), (2019).
  • Integration of survival and binary data for variable selection and prediction: a Bayesian approach, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12377, 68, 5, (1577-1595), (2019).
  • Case‐only trees and random forests for exploring genotype‐specific treatment effects in randomized clinical trials with dichotomous end points, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12366, 68, 5, (1371-1391), (2019).
  • Book Reviews, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10.1080/01621459.2019.1598212, 114, 525, (477-483), (2019).
  • Optimizing natural killer cell doses for heterogeneous cancer patients on the basis of multiple event times, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12271, 68, 2, (461-474), (2018).
  • Efficacy/toxicity dose-finding using hierarchical modeling for multiple populations, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.cct.2018.06.012, 71, (162-172), (2018).
  • BOIN‐ET: Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1864, 17, 4, (383-395), (2018).
  • Patient-specific dose finding in phase I clinical trials, Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.1080/02664763.2018.1428735, 45, 14, (2607-2618), (2018).
  • Phase I–II clinical trial design: a state-of-the-art paradigm for dose finding, Annals of Oncology, 10.1093/annonc/mdx795, 29, 3, (694-699), (2017).
  • Learning Optimal Personalized Treatment Rules in Consideration of Benefit and Risk: With an Application to Treating Type 2 Diabetes Patients With Insulin Therapies, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10.1080/01621459.2017.1303386, 113, 521, (1-13), (2017).
  • Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II—efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts, Annals of Oncology, 10.1093/annonc/mdx045, 28, 7, (1427-1435), (2017).
  • Pharmacokinetically guided optimum adaptive dose selection in early phase clinical trials, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 10.1016/j.csda.2017.02.009, 111, (183-202), (2017).
  • Sequential designs for individualized dosing in phase I cancer clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.cct.2016.08.018, 63, (51-58), (2017).
  • A simulation study of methods for selecting subgroup‐specific doses in phase 1 trials, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1797, 16, 2, (143-156), (2017).
  • Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel, Blood, 10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196, 129, 4, (424-447), (2016).
  • Designs for phase I trials in ordered groups, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7133, 36, 2, (254-265), (2016).
  • Bayesian Phase I/II Biomarker-Based Dose Finding for Precision Medicine With Molecularly Targeted Agents, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10.1080/01621459.2016.1228534, 112, 518, (508-520), (2016).
  • Bayesian Dose-Finding in Two Treatment Cycles Based on the Joint Utility of Efficacy and Toxicity, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10.1080/01621459.2014.926815, 110, 510, (711-722), (2015).
  • A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1686, 14, 4, (302-310), (2015).
  • A new approach to designing phase I‐II cancer trials for cytotoxic chemotherapies, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6124, 33, 16, (2718-2735), (2014).
  • Controversies Related to Oncology Clinical Trial Development, Cancer Consult: Expertise for Clinical Practice, 10.1002/9781118589199, (831-834), (2014).
  • Novel Statistical Designs for Phase I/II and Phase II Clinical Trials With Dose-Finding Objectives, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 10.1177/2168479014523765, 48, 5, (601-612), (2014).
  • Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD000213.pub3, (2014).
  • Individualized Dosing for Multiple Ordered Groups of Patients, Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 10.1080/15598608.2013.756348, 7, 1, (95-106), (2013).
  • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Modern Clinical Trial Analysis, 10.1007/978-1-4614-4322-3, (127-148), (2013).
  • Adaptive Bayesian compound designs for dose finding studies, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 10.1016/j.jspi.2011.12.029, 142, 6, (1480-1492), (2012).
  • Adaptive Decision Making Based on Interval-Censored Data in a Clinical Trial to Optimize Rapid Treatment of Stroke, Interval-Censored Time-to-Event Data, 10.1201/b12290-16, (2012).
  • The Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) and Related Topics^|^mdash;A Review. Part II: Modified/Extended CRMs and Related Designs., Japanese Journal of Biometrics, 10.5691/jjb.33.31, 33, 1, (31-76), (2012).
  • Adaptive Randomization to Improve Utility-Based Dose-Finding with Bivariate Ordinal Outcomes, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2012.676586, 22, 4, (785-801), (2012).
  • A note on effective sample size for constructing confidence intervals for the difference of two proportions, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.540, 11, 2, (163-169), (2012).
  • Innovative Clinical Trial Designs, Statistics in Biosciences, 10.1007/s12561-011-9042-5, 3, 2, (145-168), (2011).
  • References, Dose Finding by the Continual Reassessment Method, 10.1201/b10783-19, (179-186), (2011).
  • Optimizing the Concentration and Bolus of a Drug Delivered by Continuous Infusion, Biometrics, 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01580.x, 67, 4, (1638-1646), (2011).
  • Application of the continual reassessment method to a phase I dose‐finding trial in Japanese patients: East meets West, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.3999, 30, 17, (2090-2097), (2011).
  • New Designs for Clinical Trials: Acute Myeloid Leukemia as an Example, Leukemias: Principles and Practice of Therapy, 10.1002/9781444327359, (419-428), (2011).
  • A Two-Stage Adaptive Design in Phase 2 Clinical Trials for Acute Treatment of Migraine, Drug Information Journal, 10.1177/009286151104500311, 45, 3, (315-330), (2011).
  • Covariate-Adjusted Adaptive Dose-Finding in Early Phase Clinical Trials, Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.3109/9781439822463, (369-379), (2010).
  • Utility‐Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials, Biometrics, 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01302.x, 66, 2, (532-540), (2010).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.