Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 10091908

Two-sample continual reassessment method.

Abstract

We discuss an extension of the continual reassessment method (CRM) for use in phase I dose-finding studies. The extension enables the method to be applied to two groups of patients to determine the appropriate dose levels for each group. The method takes the specification of a simple relationship between the dose-toxicity curves for the two groups and runs the CRM on the bivariate model using maximum likelihood. We prove consistency of the method under fairly weak conditions and provide several simulations to give an idea how the method works in practice. We also undertake an evaluation of its performance by considering three possible situations: The first is the two-sample CRM, which directly uses a working model for the relationship between the two groups, carrying out a single trial using this method; the second situation carries out single trials for each of the two groups separately using the original (one-sample) CRM. The third situation is the case where such heterogeneity is ignored and the two groups are pooled into a single group, again using the original (one-sample) CRM. Simulations are carried out under a large class of model misspecifications, both of the dose-toxicity relationships and of the functional form linking the groups, and are backed up by asymptotic results. Our conclusions match intuition: The first scheme gives the most favorable results when the two groups are different but share some features. When the groups are very different, the second scheme performs similarly to the first for finite sample sizes while having some advantages in terms of asymptotic efficiency. The third, as expected, gives the best results in the absence of patient heterogeneity. The two-sample method appears particularly advantageous when there may not be enough subjects in one of the subgroups for it to be feasible to carry out two trials.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J O'Quigley, L Z Shen, A Gamst. 1999. Two-sample continual reassessment method.. https://doi.org/10.1081/bip-100100998

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The study of candidate genes in drug trials: sample size considerations.

With discovery of an increasing number of candidate genes that may affect inter-individual variability in response to drugs, the design of drug trials that incorporate their study has become relevant. We discuss the determination of sample size for such studies when the number of tests to perform is given, or, alternatively, the number of tests to perform when the sample size is given. In many cases, a uniformly most powerful test does not exist and normal approximations are not sufficiently accurate to determine sample size. We discuss briefly various tests of interest and we give simple examples to illustrate some of the problems that arise.

Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic

Bootstrap approach for constructing confidence intervals for population pharmacokinetic parameters. II: A bootstrap modification of standard two-stage (STS) method for phase I trial.

For population pharmacokinetics in phase I trials, the standard two-stage (STS) method is quite appealing, especially to non-statisticians, because the method is theoretically and computationally simple. The method, however, does not take into account the uncertainty in estimating individual-specific parameters and gives biased estimates for population variances of pharmacokinetic parameters. This is one of the main reasons why the STS method is not generally recommended. This paper proposes a simple bootstrap modification of the STS method for estimating confidence intervals of population means and standard deviations of pharmacokinetic parameters in phase I trials. The proposed approach adopts a bootstrap bias correction in estimating population variances of pharmacokinetic parameters. Applications are given to a simulated data set and an actual phase I trial to show how the proposed approach works in practice.

Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic