4.3 Article

Effective sample size for computing prior hyperparameters in Bayesian phase I-II dose-finding

Journal

CLINICAL TRIALS
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages 657-666

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1740774514547397

Keywords

Adaptive design; Bayesian design; clinical trial; dose-finding; phase I/II trial

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant [RO1 CA 083932]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available