A decision-theoretic phase I-II design for ordinal outcomes in two cycles.

This paper is motivated by a phase I-II clinical trial of a targeted agent for advanced solid tumors. We study a stylized version of this trial with the goal to determine optimal actions in each of two cycles of therapy. A design is presented that generalizes the decision-theoretic two-cycle design of Lee and others (2015. Bayesian dose-finding in two treatment cycles based on the joint utility of efficacy and toxicity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, to appear) to accommodate ordinal outcomes. Backward induction is used to jointly optimize the actions taken for each patient in each of the two cycles, with the second action accounting for the patient's cycle 1 dose and outcomes. A simulation study shows that simpler designs obtained by dichotomizing the ordinal outcomes either perform very similarly to the proposed design, or have much worse performance in some scenarios. We also compare the proposed design with the simpler approaches of optimizing the doses in each cycle separately, or ignoring the distinction between cycles 1 and 2.

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

[2]  R. Bellman.  Dynamic programming. , 1957, Science.

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

[4]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Bayesian Dose-Finding in Two Treatment Cycles Based on the Joint Utility of Efficacy and Toxicity , 2015, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[5]  Jeremy MG Taylor,et al.  A Phase I/II trial design when response is unobserved in subjects with dose-limiting toxicity , 2016, Statistical methods in medical research.

[6]  Michel Tokic.  Adaptive ε-greedy Exploration in Reinforcement Learning Based on Value Differences , 2010 .

[7]  F Bretz,et al.  Combining Multiple Comparisons and Modeling Techniques in Dose‐Response Studies , 2005, Biometrics.

[8]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Adaptive Randomization to Improve Utility-Based Dose-Finding with Bivariate Ordinal Outcomes , 2012, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  Yosef Rinott,et al.  The Treatment Versus Experimentation Dilemma in Dose-finding Studies , 2011 .

[10]  Christian P. Robert,et al.  The Bayesian choice : from decision-theoretic foundations to computational implementation , 2007 .

[11]  Lurdes Y. T. Inoue,et al.  Decision Theory: Principles and Approaches , 2009 .

[12]  Bibhas Chakraborty,et al.  Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) with adaptive randomization for quality improvement in depression treatment program , 2015, Biometrics.

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

[14]  S. Murphy,et al.  Optimal dynamic treatment regimes , 2003 .

[15]  Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer,et al.  Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method , 2012, Clinical trials.

[16]  Sarah Zohar,et al.  Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs , 2011, Clinical trials.

[17]  Yuan Ji,et al.  Bayesian Dose‐Finding in Phase I/II Clinical Trials Using Toxicity and Efficacy Odds Ratios , 2006, Biometrics.

[18]  M. Kosorok,et al.  Reinforcement Learning Strategies for Clinical Trials in Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer , 2011, Biometrics.