title: Using joint utilities of the times to response and toxicity to adaptively optimize schedule-dose regimes.
abstract: A Bayesian two-stage phase I-II design is proposed for optimizing administration schedule and dose of an experimental agent based on the times to response and toxicity in the case where schedules are non-nested and qualitatively different. Sequentially adaptive decisions are based on the joint utility of the two event times. A utility function is constructed by partitioning the two-dimensional positive real quadrant of possible event time pairs into rectangles, eliciting a numerical utility for each rectangle, and fitting a smooth parametric function to the elicited values. We assume that each event time follows a gamma distribution with shape and scale parameters both modeled as functions of schedule and dose. A copula is assumed to obtain a bivariate distribution. To ensure an ethical trial, adaptive safety and efficacy acceptability conditions are imposed on the (schedule, dose) regimes. In stage 1 of the design, patients are randomized fairly among schedules and, within each schedule, a dose is chosen using a hybrid algorithm that either maximizes posterior mean utility or randomizes among acceptable doses. In stage 2, fair randomization among schedules is replaced by the hybrid algorithm. A modified version of this algorithm is used for nested schedules. Extensions of the model and utility function to accommodate death or discontinuation of follow up are described. The method is illustrated by an autologous stem cell transplantation trial in multiple myeloma, including a simulation study.
authors: Department of Biostatistics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
authors: Peter F
authors: PF
authors: Thall
authors: Hoang Q
authors: HQ
authors: Nguyen
authors: Thomas M
authors: TM
authors: Braun
authors: Muzaffar H
authors: MH
authors: Qazilbash
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D064592:Autografts; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D001699:Biometry / Q000379:methods; D017322:Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003657:Decision Making; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D064420:Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; D006801:Humans; D016013:Likelihood Functions; D008558:Melphalan / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009101:Multiple Myeloma / Q000628:therapy; D019653:Myeloablative Agonists / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D011338:Probability Theory; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D033581:Stem Cell Transplantation
chemical_list: D019653:Myeloablative Agonists; D008558:Melphalan
keywords: Adaptive decision making; Bayesian design; Phase I/II clinical trial; Stem cell transplantation; Utility
references: Control Clin Trials. 2002 Jun;23(3):240-56
references: 12057877
references: Stat Med. 2006 Jul 30;25(14):2365-83
references: 16220478
references: Stat Med. 2008 Oct 30;27(24):4895-913
references: 18563789
references: Biometrics. 2011 Dec;67(4):1638-46
references: 21401568
references: Biometrics. 2005 Jun;61(2):335-43
references: 16011679
references: Stat Med. 2006 Jun 30;25(12):2071-83
references: 16217853
references: Clin Trials. 2007;4(2):113-24
references: 17456511
references: Biometrics. 1998 Mar;54(1):251-64
references: 9544520
references: J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2009 May;58(2):225-236
references: 21611136
references: J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22(4):785-801
references: 22651115
references: Biometrics. 2004 Sep;60(3):684-93
references: 15339291
references: Biostatistics. 2008 Jul;9(3):442-57
references: 18084008
references: Biometrics. 2000 Dec;56(4):1177-82
references: 11129476
references: Stat Sci. 2010 May;25(2):227-244
references: 21318084