4.7 Article

Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 27, 页码 4426-4433

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.3844

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA78554, P01 CA59827] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The standard design for phase I trials of combined chemotherapy and radiation, which enters either three or six patients per dose level, has little statistical basis and is subject to opening and closing because of delayed toxicities that disrupt patient accrual. We compared the operating characteristics of this standard design and the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) for dose-escalation trials of combination chemotherapy and radiation. Methods The operating characteristics were determined by Monte Carlo simulation of 60,000 phase I trials. Results Compared with the standard trial design, in studies with delayed toxicity lie, where four or more patients are expected to enter onto the study during a single previously enrolled patient's observation for toxicity), TITE-CRM trials are significantly shorter when toxicity observation times are long, treat more patients at or above the maximum-tolerated dose, identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) more accurately, and provide phase II information, but do not expose patients to significant additional risk. Estimation precision and overdose control of TITE-CRM increase as the design assumptions more closely resemble the true state of nature, but are reduced if, for instance, the toxicity of treatment has been grossly underestimated. Conclusion Compared with the standard design, if there is any prior knowledge concerning the toxicity profile of a treatment, TITE-CRM can leverage it to produce more accurate estimates of the MTD and does not expose patients to significant excess risk, but requires timely communication between clinical investigators, data managers, and study statisticians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据