Adaptive Randomization to Improve Utility-Based Dose-Finding with Bivariate Ordinal Outcomes

A sequentially outcome-adaptive Bayesian design is proposed for choosing the dose of an experimental therapy based on elicited utilities of a bivariate ordinal (toxicity, efficacy) outcome. Subject to posterior acceptability criteria to control the risk of severe toxicity and exclude unpromising doses, patients are randomized adaptively among the doses having posterior mean utilities near the maximum. The utility increment used to define near-optimality is nonincreasing with sample size. The adaptive randomization uses each dose's posterior probability of a set of good outcomes, defined by a lower utility cutoff. Saturated parametric models are assumed for the marginal dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy distributions, allowing the possible requirement of monotonicity in dose, and a copula is used to obtain a joint distribution. Prior means are computed by simulation using elicited outcome probabilities, and prior variances are calibrated to control prior effective sample size and obtain a design with good operating characteristics. The method is illustrated by a Phase I/II trial of radiation therapy for children with brainstem gliomas.

[1]  Wei Zhang,et al.  An adaptive dose‐finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[3]  L. Haines,et al.  Bayesian Optimal Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials , 2003, Biometrics.

[4]  V. Fedorov,et al.  Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity response , 2006 .

[5]  S Zacks,et al.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Bill Ravens,et al.  An Introduction to Copulas , 2000, Technometrics.

[7]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes , 2009 .

[8]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Approximate Dynamic Programming and Its Applications to the Design of Phase I Cancer Trials , 2010, 1011.6509.

[9]  James O. Berger,et al.  Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, Second Edition , 1985 .

[10]  Yu Shen,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Jointly Modeling Toxicity and Biomarker Expression in a Phase I/II Dose‐Finding Trial , 2005, Biometrics.

[11]  P F Thall,et al.  A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. , 1998, Biometrics.

[12]  Thomas M Braun,et al.  The bivariate continual reassessment method. extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[13]  J. Fowler The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. , 1989, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Utility‐Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials , 2010, Biometrics.

[15]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Dose‐Finding Designs for HIV Studies , 2001, Biometrics.

[16]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Patient‐Specific Dose Finding Based on Bivariate Outcomes and Covariates , 2008, Biometrics.

[17]  R. Chappell,et al.  The Continual Reassessment Method for Multiple Toxicity Grades: A Bayesian Quasi‐Likelihood Approach , 2007, Biometrics.

[18]  D. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Proportional odds model for dose‐finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  P. McCullagh Regression Models for Ordinal Data , 1980 .

[20]  P. Thall,et al.  Dose‐Finding Based on Efficacy–Toxicity Trade‐Offs , 2004, Biometrics.

[21]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[22]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. , 1990 .

[23]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent , 2007, Clinical trials.

[24]  B. Nebiyou Bekele,et al.  Dose-Finding Based on Multiple Toxicities in a Soft Tissue Sarcoma Trial , 2004 .

[25]  Hoon Kim,et al.  Monte Carlo Statistical Methods , 2000, Technometrics.

[26]  J. Berger Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .

[27]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. , 1990, Biometrics.

[28]  Hoang Q. Nguyen,et al.  Optimizing the Concentration and Bolus of a Drug Delivered by Continuous Infusion , 2011, Biometrics.