Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method

The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a method for estimating the maximum tolerated dose in a dose-finding study. Traditionally, use is made of a single working model or 'skeleton' idealizing an underlying true dose-toxicity relationship. This working model is chosen either by discussion with investigators or published data, before the beginning of the trial or simply on the basis of operating characteristics. To overcome the arbitrariness of the choice of such a single working model, Yin and Yuan (biJ. Am. Statist. Assoc. 2009; 104:954-968) propose a model averaging over a set of working models. Here, instead of averaging, we investigate some alternative Bayesian model criteria that maximize the posterior distribution. We propose three adaptive model-selecting CRMs using the Bayesian model selection criteria, in which we specify in advance a collection of candidate working models for the dose-toxicity relationship, especially initial guesses of toxicity probabilities, and adaptively select the only one working model among the candidates updated by using the original CRM for each working model, based on the posterior model probability, the posterior predictive loss or the deviance information criteria, during the course of the trial. These approaches were compared via a simulation study with the model averaging approach.

[1]  B E Storer,et al.  Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. , 1989, Biometrics.

[2]  Alexia Iasonos,et al.  A Comprehensive Comparison of the Continual Reassessment Method to the Standard 3 + 3 Dose Escalation Scheme in Phase I Dose-Finding Studies , 2008, Clinical trials.

[3]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. , 1996, Biometrics.

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

[5]  John O'Quigley,et al.  Consistency of continual reassessment method under model misspecification , 1996 .

[6]  Anastasia Ivanova,et al.  Improved up‐and‐down designs for phase I trials , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Ying Kuen Cheung,et al.  A Simple Technique to Evaluate Model Sensitivity in the Continual Reassessment Method , 2002, Biometrics.

[8]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method in Phase I Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[9]  Ying Kuen Cheung,et al.  Sequential Implementation of Stepwise Procedures for Identifying the Maximum Tolerated Dose , 2007 .

[10]  J O'Quigley,et al.  Another look at two phase I clinical trial designs. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[12]  W J Shih,et al.  Statistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. , 2001, Biostatistics.

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

[14]  Anastasia Ivanova,et al.  Escalation, group and A + B designs for dose‐finding trials , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  Shing M. Lee,et al.  Model calibration in the continual reassessment method , 2009, Clinical trials.

[16]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[17]  J Whitehead,et al.  Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. , 1998, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[18]  Alan E. Gelfand,et al.  Model choice: A minimum posterior predictive loss approach , 1998, AISTATS.

[19]  Sarah Zohar,et al.  Retrospective Robustness of the Continual Reassessment Method , 2010, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.