![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Background:
The efficacy–toxicity trade-off based design is a practical Bayesian phase I–II dose-finding methodology. Because the design’s performance is very sensitive to prior hyperparameters and the shape of the target trade-off contour, specifying these two design elements properly is essential.
Purpose:
The goals are to provide a method that uses elicited mean outcome probabilities to derive a prior that is neither overly informative nor overly disperse, and practical guidelines for specifying the target trade-off contour.
Methods:
A general algorithm is presented that determines prior hyperparameters using least squares penalized by effective sample size. Guidelines for specifying the trade-off contour are provided. These methods are illustrated by a clinical trial in advanced prostate cancer. A new version of the efficacy–toxicity program is provided for implementation.
Results:
Together, the algorithm and guidelines provide substantive improvements in the design’s operating characteristics.
Limitations:
The method requires a substantial number of elicited values and design parameters, and computer simulations are required to obtain an acceptable design.
Conclusion:
The two key improvements greatly enhance the efficacy–toxicity design’s practical usefulness and are straightforward to implement using the updated computer program. The algorithm for determining prior hyperparameters to ensure a specified level of informativeness is general, and may be applied to models other than that underlying the efficacy–toxicity method.
References
| 1. |
Braun, TM, Wang, S. A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of cancer therapeutic agents. Biometrics 2010; 66: 805–812. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 2. |
Cheung, Y-K . Dose finding by the continual reassessment method. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2011. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 3. |
Thall, PF, Szabo, A, Nguyen, HQ. Optimizing the concentration and bolus of a drug delivered by continuous infusion. Biometrics 2011; 67: 1638–1646. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 4. |
Thall, PF, Cook, JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60: 684–693. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 5. |
Thall, PF, Cook, JD, Estey, EH. Adaptive dose selection using efficacy-toxicity trade-offs: illustrations and practical considerations. J Biopharm Stat 2006; 16: 623–638. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 6. |
Morita, S, Thall, PF, Müller, P. Determining the effective sample size of a parametric prior. Biometrics 2008; 64: 595–602. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 7. |
Morita, S, Thall, PF, Müller, P. Evaluating the impact of prior assumptions in Bayesian biostatistics. Stat Biosci 2010; 2: 1–17. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 8. |
Nelder, JA, Mead, R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 1965; 7: 308. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 9. |
Tsutakawa, RK, Lin, HY. Bayesian estimation of item response curves. Psychometrika 1986; 51: 251–267. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 10. |
Bedrick, EJ, Christensen, R, Johnson, W. A new perspective on priors for generalized linear models. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 1450–1460. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 11. |
Conaway, MR, Petroni, GR. Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity. Biometrics 1996; 52: 1375–1386. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 12. |
Thall, PF, Russell, KT. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics 1998; 54: 251–264. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. |
Thall, PF, Wooten, LH, Shpall, EJ. A geometric approach to comparing treatments for rapidly fatal diseases. Biometrics 2006; 62: 193–201. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. |
Gooley, TA, Martin, PJ, Fisher, LD. Simulation as a design tool for phase I/II clinical trials: an example from bone marrow transplantation. Control Clin Trials 1994; 15: 450–462. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 15. |
Braun, TM . The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 240–256. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 16. |
Yuan, Y, Yin, G. Bayesian dose-finding by jointly modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. J Roy Stat Soc C: App 2009; 58: 954–968. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 17. |
Zhang, W, Sargent, DJ, Mandrekar, S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both efficacy and toxicity. Stat Med 2006; 25: 2365–2383. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 18. |
Chevret, S . Statistical methods for dose-finding experiments. New York: Wiley, 2006. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 19. |
Zohar, S, Chevret, S. Recent developments in adaptive designs for phase I/II dose-finding studies. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 1071–1083. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 20. |
Jin, I-H, Liu, S, Thall, PF. Using data augmentation to facilitate conduct of phase I/II clinical trials with delayed outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 525–536. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
