Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering

Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biometrics 2011-12, Vol.67 (4), p.1555-1563
Hauptverfasser: Wages, Nolan A., Conaway, Mark R., O'Quigley, John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1563
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1555
container_title Biometrics
container_volume 67
creator Wages, Nolan A.
Conaway, Mark R.
O'Quigley, John
description Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A fundamental assumption of these methods is monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve. This is a reasonable assumption for single‐agent trials in which the administration of greater doses of the agent can be expected to produce dose‐limiting toxicities in increasing proportions of patients. When studying multiple agents, the assumption may not hold because the ordering of the toxicity probabilities could possibly be unknown for several of the available drug combinations. At the same time, some of the orderings are known and so we describe the whole situation as that of a partial ordering. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional dose‐finding method for multiple‐agent trials that simplifies to the continual reassessment method (CRM), introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46, 33–48), when the ordering is fully known. This design enables us to relax the assumption of a monotonic dose–toxicity curve. We compare our approach and some simulation results to a CRM design in which the ordering is known as well as to other suggestions for partial orders.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01560.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3141101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>41434461</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>41434461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6180-c095928742115ad278cbd9a35da44e1a7ae8d6a544c4c8ff46140aa2f35028ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUU1v1DAQtRCIbgs_AYg49ZLgcezEuSCVFSyVWraCVstt5CbO1iEbFzuB7b_HISV8nPDFtt6bN2_mERIBTSCcV00CgkNMOaMJowAJBZHRZP-ALGbgIVlQSrM45fD5gBx634RvISh7TA4YpBlIKReELW3Xm25QbfRRK--19zvd9dG57m9sFdXWRRfK9Sbga1dpZ7rtE_KoVq3XT-_vI3L17u3l8n18tl6dLk_O4jJo07gMzQomc84AhKpYLsvrqlCpqBTnGlSutKwyJTgveSnrmmfAqVKsToNHqXR6RF5PurfD9U5XZbDlVIu3zuyUu0OrDP6NdOYGt_YbpsABKASB43sBZ78O2ve4M77Ubas6bQePkOVSZHkueKC-_Ifa2MF1YTwsgBZ5JkAGkpxIpbPeO13PXoDimAs2OK4fx_XjmAv-zAX3ofT5n7PMhb-C-D3sd9Pqu_8Wxjen6_PxGQSeTQKN762bBTjwlIfVBjyecON7vZ9x5b5glqe5wM2HFcLqQm4uNxRHQy8mfq0sqq0zHq8-hdaCUuCSgUh_AJYwvNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>910976518</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>JSTOR Mathematics &amp; Statistics</source><creator>Wages, Nolan A. ; Conaway, Mark R. ; O'Quigley, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Wages, Nolan A. ; Conaway, Mark R. ; O'Quigley, John</creatorcontrib><description>Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A fundamental assumption of these methods is monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve. This is a reasonable assumption for single‐agent trials in which the administration of greater doses of the agent can be expected to produce dose‐limiting toxicities in increasing proportions of patients. When studying multiple agents, the assumption may not hold because the ordering of the toxicity probabilities could possibly be unknown for several of the available drug combinations. At the same time, some of the orderings are known and so we describe the whole situation as that of a partial ordering. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional dose‐finding method for multiple‐agent trials that simplifies to the continual reassessment method (CRM), introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46, 33–48), when the ordering is fully known. This design enables us to relax the assumption of a monotonic dose–toxicity curve. We compare our approach and some simulation results to a CRM design in which the ordering is known as well as to other suggestions for partial orders.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-341X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1541-0420</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01560.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21361888</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BIOMA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use ; Antineoplastic Agents - toxicity ; BIOMETRIC METHODOLOGY ; Biometrics ; biometry ; Clinical trial ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic - methods ; combination drug therapy ; Continual reassessment method ; Cytotoxicity ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Dosage ; Dose escalation ; Dose-finding studies ; Drug combination ; Drug combinations ; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - epidemiology ; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - etiology ; Estimation methods ; experimental design ; Experimentation ; Humans ; Maximum Tolerated Dose ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Oncology ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Parametric models ; Partial ordering ; patients ; Phase 1 trials ; Probabilities ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk Factors ; Sample size ; Skeleton ; Statistical analysis ; Toxicity ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Biometrics, 2011-12, Vol.67 (4), p.1555-1563</ispartof><rights>2011 International Biometric Society</rights><rights>2011, The International Biometric Society</rights><rights>2011, The International Biometric Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6180-c095928742115ad278cbd9a35da44e1a7ae8d6a544c4c8ff46140aa2f35028ae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6180-c095928742115ad278cbd9a35da44e1a7ae8d6a544c4c8ff46140aa2f35028ae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41434461$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41434461$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,828,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,57996,58225,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21361888$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wages, Nolan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conaway, Mark R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Quigley, John</creatorcontrib><title>Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering</title><title>Biometrics</title><addtitle>Biometrics</addtitle><description>Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A fundamental assumption of these methods is monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve. This is a reasonable assumption for single‐agent trials in which the administration of greater doses of the agent can be expected to produce dose‐limiting toxicities in increasing proportions of patients. When studying multiple agents, the assumption may not hold because the ordering of the toxicity probabilities could possibly be unknown for several of the available drug combinations. At the same time, some of the orderings are known and so we describe the whole situation as that of a partial ordering. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional dose‐finding method for multiple‐agent trials that simplifies to the continual reassessment method (CRM), introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46, 33–48), when the ordering is fully known. This design enables us to relax the assumption of a monotonic dose–toxicity curve. We compare our approach and some simulation results to a CRM design in which the ordering is known as well as to other suggestions for partial orders.</description><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - toxicity</subject><subject>BIOMETRIC METHODOLOGY</subject><subject>Biometrics</subject><subject>biometry</subject><subject>Clinical trial</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic - methods</subject><subject>combination drug therapy</subject><subject>Continual reassessment method</subject><subject>Cytotoxicity</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Dosage</subject><subject>Dose escalation</subject><subject>Dose-finding studies</subject><subject>Drug combination</subject><subject>Drug combinations</subject><subject>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - epidemiology</subject><subject>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - etiology</subject><subject>Estimation methods</subject><subject>experimental design</subject><subject>Experimentation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Maximum Tolerated Dose</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Parametric models</subject><subject>Partial ordering</subject><subject>patients</subject><subject>Phase 1 trials</subject><subject>Probabilities</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Skeleton</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0006-341X</issn><issn>1541-0420</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUU1v1DAQtRCIbgs_AYg49ZLgcezEuSCVFSyVWraCVstt5CbO1iEbFzuB7b_HISV8nPDFtt6bN2_mERIBTSCcV00CgkNMOaMJowAJBZHRZP-ALGbgIVlQSrM45fD5gBx634RvISh7TA4YpBlIKReELW3Xm25QbfRRK--19zvd9dG57m9sFdXWRRfK9Sbga1dpZ7rtE_KoVq3XT-_vI3L17u3l8n18tl6dLk_O4jJo07gMzQomc84AhKpYLsvrqlCpqBTnGlSutKwyJTgveSnrmmfAqVKsToNHqXR6RF5PurfD9U5XZbDlVIu3zuyUu0OrDP6NdOYGt_YbpsABKASB43sBZ78O2ve4M77Ubas6bQePkOVSZHkueKC-_Ifa2MF1YTwsgBZ5JkAGkpxIpbPeO13PXoDimAs2OK4fx_XjmAv-zAX3ofT5n7PMhb-C-D3sd9Pqu_8Wxjen6_PxGQSeTQKN762bBTjwlIfVBjyecON7vZ9x5b5glqe5wM2HFcLqQm4uNxRHQy8mfq0sqq0zHq8-hdaCUuCSgUh_AJYwvNw</recordid><startdate>201112</startdate><enddate>201112</enddate><creator>Wages, Nolan A.</creator><creator>Conaway, Mark R.</creator><creator>O'Quigley, John</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201112</creationdate><title>Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering</title><author>Wages, Nolan A. ; Conaway, Mark R. ; O'Quigley, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6180-c095928742115ad278cbd9a35da44e1a7ae8d6a544c4c8ff46140aa2f35028ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - toxicity</topic><topic>BIOMETRIC METHODOLOGY</topic><topic>Biometrics</topic><topic>biometry</topic><topic>Clinical trial</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic - methods</topic><topic>combination drug therapy</topic><topic>Continual reassessment method</topic><topic>Cytotoxicity</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Dosage</topic><topic>Dose escalation</topic><topic>Dose-finding studies</topic><topic>Drug combination</topic><topic>Drug combinations</topic><topic>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - epidemiology</topic><topic>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - etiology</topic><topic>Estimation methods</topic><topic>experimental design</topic><topic>Experimentation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Maximum Tolerated Dose</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Parametric models</topic><topic>Partial ordering</topic><topic>patients</topic><topic>Phase 1 trials</topic><topic>Probabilities</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Skeleton</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wages, Nolan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conaway, Mark R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Quigley, John</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Biometrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wages, Nolan A.</au><au>Conaway, Mark R.</au><au>O'Quigley, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering</atitle><jtitle>Biometrics</jtitle><addtitle>Biometrics</addtitle><date>2011-12</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1555</spage><epage>1563</epage><pages>1555-1563</pages><issn>0006-341X</issn><eissn>1541-0420</eissn><coden>BIOMA5</coden><abstract>Much of the statistical methodology underlying the experimental design of phase 1 trials in oncology is intended for studies involving a single cytotoxic agent. The goal of these studies is to estimate the maximally tolerated dose, the highest dose that can be administered with an acceptable level of toxicity. A fundamental assumption of these methods is monotonicity of the dose–toxicity curve. This is a reasonable assumption for single‐agent trials in which the administration of greater doses of the agent can be expected to produce dose‐limiting toxicities in increasing proportions of patients. When studying multiple agents, the assumption may not hold because the ordering of the toxicity probabilities could possibly be unknown for several of the available drug combinations. At the same time, some of the orderings are known and so we describe the whole situation as that of a partial ordering. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional dose‐finding method for multiple‐agent trials that simplifies to the continual reassessment method (CRM), introduced by O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46, 33–48), when the ordering is fully known. This design enables us to relax the assumption of a monotonic dose–toxicity curve. We compare our approach and some simulation results to a CRM design in which the ordering is known as well as to other suggestions for partial orders.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>21361888</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01560.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-341X
ispartof Biometrics, 2011-12, Vol.67 (4), p.1555-1563
issn 0006-341X
1541-0420
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3141101
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; JSTOR Mathematics & Statistics
subjects Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Agents - toxicity
BIOMETRIC METHODOLOGY
Biometrics
biometry
Clinical trial
Clinical trials
Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic - methods
combination drug therapy
Continual reassessment method
Cytotoxicity
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Dosage
Dose escalation
Dose-finding studies
Drug combination
Drug combinations
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - epidemiology
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - etiology
Estimation methods
experimental design
Experimentation
Humans
Maximum Tolerated Dose
Neoplasms - drug therapy
Oncology
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods
Parametric models
Partial ordering
patients
Phase 1 trials
Probabilities
Risk Assessment - methods
Risk Factors
Sample size
Skeleton
Statistical analysis
Toxicity
Treatment Outcome
title Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T10%3A17%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Continual%20Reassessment%20Method%20for%20Partial%20Ordering&rft.jtitle=Biometrics&rft.au=Wages,%20Nolan%20A.&rft.date=2011-12&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1555&rft.epage=1563&rft.pages=1555-1563&rft.issn=0006-341X&rft.eissn=1541-0420&rft.coden=BIOMA5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01560.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E41434461%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=910976518&rft_id=info:pmid/21361888&rft_jstor_id=41434461&rfr_iscdi=true