Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John O'Quigley

Publications and source records attributed to John O'Quigley.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Interval estimates of the probability of toxicity at the maximum tolerated dose for small samples.

Following on from the work of O'Quigley et al., we investigate the performance of interval estimates of the probability of toxicity following completion of a phase I clinical trial. Our particular focus is on very small sample sizes, not uncommon in phase I studies. Specifically, we study the situations for which the sample sizes are 12 or 16. Simulations are used to show that the coverage of the confidence intervals, even for very modest sample sizes, are close to nominal in most cases. Averaged over the range of situations considered, coverage rates are accurate for both sample sizes of 12 and 16. As for the larger sample size of 20, studied previously, it is possible to obtain further, albeit modest, improvements via the use of the Cornish-Fisher inversion.

Antineoplastic Agents↗

Continual reassessment method for ordered groups.

We investigate the two-group continual reassessment method for a dose-finding study in which we anticipate some ordering between the groups. This is a situation in which, for either group, we have little or almost no knowledge about which of the available dose levels will correspond to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), but we may have quite strong knowledge concerning which of the two groups will have the higher level of MTD, if indeed they do not have the same MTD. The motivation for studying this problem came from an investigation into a new therapy for acute leukemia in children. The background to this study is discussed. There were two groups of patients: one group already received heavy prior therapy while the second group had received relatively much lighter prior therapy. It was therefore anticipated that the second group would have an MTD higher or at least as high as the first. Generally, likelihood methods or, equivalently, the use of noninformative Bayes priors, can be used to model the main aspects of the study, i.e., the MTD for one of the groups, reserving more informative Bayes modeling to be applied to the secondary features of the study. These secondary features may simply be the direction of the difference between the MTD levels for the two groups or, possibly, information on the potential gap between the two MTDs.

Antineoplastic Agents↗

Proportional hazards models with frailties and random effects.

We discuss some of the fundamental concepts underlying the development of frailty and random effects models in survival. One of these fundamental concepts was the idea of a frailty model where each subject has his or her own disposition to failure, their so-called frailty, additional to any effects we wish to quantify via regression. Although the concept of individual frailty can be of value when thinking about how data arise or when interpreting parameter estimates in the context of a fitted model, we argue that the concept is of limited practical value. Individual random effects (frailties), whenever detected, can be made to disappear by elementary model transformation. In consequence, unless we are to take some model form as unassailable, beyond challenge and carved in stone, and if we are to understand the term 'frailty' as referring to individual random effects, then frailty models have no value. Random effects models on the other hand, in which groups of individuals share some common effect, can be used to advantage. Even in this case however, if we are prepared to sacrifice some efficiency, we can avoid complex modelling by using the considerable power already provided by the stratified proportional hazards model. Stratified models and random effects models can both be seen to be particular cases of partially proportional hazards models, a view that gives further insight. The added structure of a random effects model, viewed as a stratified proportional hazards model with some added distributional constraints, will, for group sizes of five or more, provide no more than modest efficiency gains, even when the additional assumptions are exactly true. On the other hand, for moderate to large numbers of very small groups, of sizes two or three, the study of twins being a well known example, the efficiency gains of the random effects model can be far from negligible. For such applications, the case for using random effects models rather than the stratified model is strong. This is especially so in view of the good robustness properties of random effects models. Nonetheless, the simpler analysis, based upon the stratified model, remains valid, albeit making a less efficient use of resources.

Humans↗

Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies.

We describe a non-parametric optimal design as a theoretical gold standard for dose finding studies. Its purpose is analogous to the Cramer-Rao bound for unbiased estimators, i.e. it provides a bound beyond which improvements are not generally possible. The bound applies to the class of non-parametric designs where the data are not assumed to be generated by any known parametric model. Whenever parametric assumptions really hold it may be possible to do better than the optimal non-parametric design. The goal is to be able to compare any potential dose finding scheme with the optimal non-parametric benchmark. This paper makes precise what is meant by optimal in this context and also why the procedure is described as non-parametric.

Journal Article↗

Continual reassessment designs with early termination.

The continual reassessment method (CRM) is an increasingly popular approach for estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in phase I dose finding studies. In its original formulation, the scheme is based on a fixed sample size. Many experimenters feel that, whenever possible, it may be advantageous to bring these trials to an early halt and thus reduce average sample size required to complete the study. To address this issue a stopping rule has been proposed (O'Quigley and Reiner, 1998) based on the idea that continuing the study would not lead to a change in recommendation with high probability. The rule, based on precise probabilistic calculation, is quite involved and not straightforward to implement. A much simpler rule can be constructed based on the idea of having settled at some level. In this work we investigate more deeply the essential ingredients behind these rules and consider more closely their operating characteristics.

Journal Article↗

Curve-free and model-based continual reassessment method designs.

Gasparini and Eisele (2000, Biometrics 56, 609 615) present a development of the continual reassessment method of O'Quigley, Pepe, and Fisher (1990, Biometrics 46, 33-48). They call their development a curve-free method for Phase I clinical trials. However, unless we are dealing with informative prior information, then the curve-free method coincides with the usual model-based continual reassessment method. Both methods are subject to arbitrary specification parameters, and we provide some discussion on this. Whatever choices are made for one method, there exists equivalent choices for the other method, where " equivalent" means that the operating characteristics (sequential dose allocation and final recommendation) are the same. The insightful development of Gasparini and Eisele provides clarification on some of the basic ideas behind the continual reassessment method, particularly when viewed from a Bayesian perspective. But their development does not lead to a new class of designs and the comparative results in their article, indicating some preference for curve-free designs over model-based designs, are simply reflecting a more fortunate choice of arbitrary specification parameters. Other choices could equally well have inversed their conclusion. A correct conclusion should be one of operational equivalence. The story is different for the case of informative priors, a situation that is inherently much more difficult. We discuss this. We also mention the important idea of two-stage designs (Moller, 1995, Statistics in Medicine 14, 911-922; O'Quigley and Shen, 1996, Biometrics 52, 163-174), arguing, via a simple comparison with the results of Gasparini and Eisele (2000), that there is room for notable gains here. Two-stage designs also have an advantage of avoiding the issue of prior specification altogether.

Bayes Theorem↗