Division of Translational Research & Applied Statistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Clin Trials. 2019 Feb;16(1):32-40. doi: 10.1177/1740774518801599. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
Limited options are available for dose-finding clinical trials requiring group-specific dose selection. While conducting parallel trials for groups is an accessible approach to group-specific dose selection, this approach allows for maximum tolerated dose selection that does not align with clinically meaningful group order information.
The two-stage continual reassessment method is developed for dose-finding in studies involving three or more groups where group frailty order is known between some but not all groups, creating a partial order. This is an extension of the existing continual reassessment method shift model for two ordered groups. This method allows for dose selection by group, where maximum tolerated dose selection follows the known frailty order among groups. For example, if a group is known to be the most frail, the recommended maximum tolerated dose for this group should not exceed the maximum tolerated dose recommended for any other group.
With limited alternatives for dose-finding in partially ordered groups, this method is compared to two alternatives: (1) an existing method for dose-finding in partially ordered groups which is less computationally accessible and (2) independent trials for each group using the two-stage continual reassessment method. Simulation studies show that when ignoring information on group frailty, using independent continual reassessment method trials by group, 30% of simulations would result in maximum tolerated dose selection that is out of order between groups. In addition, the two-stage continual reassessment method for partially ordered groups selects the maximum tolerated dose more often and assigns more patients to the maximum tolerated dose compared to using independent continual reassessment method trials within each group. Simulation results for the proposed method and the less computationally accessible approach are similar.
The proposed continual reassessment method for partially ordered groups ensures appropriate maximum tolerated dose order and improves accuracy of maximum tolerated dose selection, while allowing for trial implementation that is computationally accessible.
对于需要特定组别剂量选择的剂量发现临床试验,可用的方案选择有限。虽然对组别进行平行试验是特定组别剂量选择的一种可行方法,但这种方法允许选择最大耐受剂量,而与临床有意义的组别顺序信息不匹配。
两阶段连续再评估方法是为涉及三个或更多组别的研究开发的,其中一些但不是所有组别的组脆弱性顺序已知,形成部分顺序。这是现有的连续再评估方法两个有序组转移模型的扩展。这种方法允许按组别选择剂量,其中最大耐受剂量选择遵循组间已知的脆弱性顺序。例如,如果已知一个组最脆弱,那么为该组推荐的最大耐受剂量不应超过为任何其他组推荐的最大耐受剂量。
对于部分有序组别的剂量发现,替代方案有限,因此将该方法与两种替代方案进行了比较:(1)一种现有的部分有序组剂量发现方法,该方法计算上不太容易实现;(2)为每个组使用两阶段连续再评估方法进行独立试验。模拟研究表明,当忽略组脆弱性信息时,使用独立的连续再评估方法按组别进行试验,30%的模拟结果将导致组间最大耐受剂量选择顺序不当。此外,与在每个组中使用独立的连续再评估方法试验相比,部分有序组别的两阶段连续再评估方法更频繁地选择最大耐受剂量,并为更多患者分配至最大耐受剂量。提出的方法和计算上不太容易实现的方法的模拟结果相似。
所提出的部分有序组连续再评估方法可确保适当的最大耐受剂量顺序,并提高最大耐受剂量选择的准确性,同时允许计算上可行的试验实施。