Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Stat Med. 2018 Jun 30;37(14):2208-2222. doi: 10.1002/sim.7674. Epub 2018 Apr 22.
A number of novel phase I trial designs have been proposed that aim to combine the simplicity of algorithm-based designs with the superior performance of model-based designs, including the modified toxicity probability interval, Bayesian optimal interval, and Keyboard designs. In this article, we review these "model-assisted" designs, contrast their statistical foundations and pros and cons, and compare their operating characteristics with the continual reassessment method. To provide unbiased and reliable results, our comparison is based on 10 000 dose-toxicity scenarios randomly generated using the pseudo-uniform algorithm recently proposed in the literature. The results showed that the continual reassessment method, Bayesian optimal interval, and Keyboard designs provide comparable, superior operating characteristics, and each outperforms the modified toxicity probability interval design. These designs are more likely to correctly select the maximum tolerated dose and less likely to overdose patients.
已经提出了许多新的 I 期试验设计,旨在将基于算法的设计的简单性与基于模型的设计的优越性能相结合,包括改良毒性概率区间、贝叶斯最优区间和键盘设计。在本文中,我们回顾了这些“模型辅助”设计,对比了它们的统计基础和优缺点,并将它们的操作特性与连续评估法进行了比较。为了提供无偏和可靠的结果,我们的比较是基于最近文献中提出的伪均匀算法随机生成的 10000 个剂量-毒性场景。结果表明,连续评估法、贝叶斯最优区间和键盘设计提供了可比的、优越的操作特性,每种设计都优于改良毒性概率区间设计。这些设计更有可能正确选择最大耐受剂量,并且不太可能给患者过量用药。