Statistical Science

Continual Reassessment and Related Dose-Finding Designs

John O’Quigley and Mark Conaway

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

During the last twenty years there have been considerable methodological developments in the design and analysis of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 1/2 dose-finding studies. Many of these developments are related to the continual reassessment method (CRM), first introduced by O’Quigley, Pepe and Fisher (1990). CRM models have proven themselves to be of practical use and, in this discussion, we investigate the basic approach, some connections to other methods, some generalizations, as well as further applications of the model. We obtain some new results which can provide guidance in practice.

Article information

Source
Statist. Sci., Volume 25, Number 2 (2010), 202-216.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 19 November 2010

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1290175842

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/10-STS332

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR2789990

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1328.62594

Keywords
Bayesian methods clinical trial continual reassessment method dose escalation dose-finding studies efficacy maximum likelihood maximum tolerated dose most successful dose Phase 1 trials Phase 2 trials toxicity

Citation

O’Quigley, John; Conaway, Mark. Continual Reassessment and Related Dose-Finding Designs. Statist. Sci. 25 (2010), no. 2, 202--216. doi:10.1214/10-STS332. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1290175842


Export citation

References

  • Babb, J., Rogatko, A. and Zacks, S. (1998). Cancer Phase I clinical trials: Efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statist. Med. 17 1103–1120.
  • Braun, T. (2002). The bivariate-continual reassessment method. Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clinical Trials 23 240–256.
  • Cheung, Y.-K. (2002). On the use of nonparametric curves in phase I trials with low toxicity tolerance. Biometrics 58 237–240.
  • Cheung, Y.-K. (2005). Coherence principles in dose-finding studies. Biometrika 92 863–873.
  • Cheung, Y.-K. and Chappell, R. (2002). A simple technique to evaluate model sensitivity in the continual reassessment method. Biometrics 58 671–674.
  • Cheung, Y.-K. and Elkind, M. S. (2010). Stochastic approximation with virtual observations for dose-finding on discrete levels. Biometrika 97 109–121.
  • Chevret, S. (1993). The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: A simulation study. Stat. Med. 12 1093–1108.
  • Faries, D. (2004). Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Statist. 4 147–164.
  • Gatsonis, C. and Greenhouse, J. B. (1992). Bayesian methods for phase I clnical trials. Stat. Med. 11 1377–1389.
  • Gasparini, M. and Eisele, J. (2000). A curve free method for Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 56 609–615.
  • Gerke, O. and Siedentop, H. (2008). Optimal Phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology—A simulation study. Stat. Med. 27 5329–5344.
  • Goodman, S., Zahurak, M. L. and Piantadosi, S. (1995). Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat. Med. 14 1149–1161.
  • Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Proc. 5th Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. Probab. 1 221–233. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  • Iasonos, A., Wilton, A., Riedel, E., Seshan, V. and Spriggs, D. (2008). A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3+3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clinical Trials 5 465–477.
  • Ishizuka, N. and Ohashi, Y. (2001). The continual reassessment method and its applications: A Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat. Med. 20 2661–2681.
  • Lee, S. and Cheung, Y.-K. (2009). Model calibration in the continual reassessment method. Clinical Trials 6 227–238.
  • Legedeza, A. and Ibrahim, J. (2002). Longitudinal design for phase I trials using the continual reassessment method. Controlled Clinical Trials 21 578–588.
  • Mahmood, I. (2001). Application of preclinical data to initiate the modified continual reassessment method for maximum tolerated dose-finding trial. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 41 19–24.
  • Martz, H. F. and Waller, R. A. (1982). Bayesian Reliability Analysis. Wiley, New York.
  • Moller, S. (1995). An extension of the continual reassessment method using a preliminary up and down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients in order to investigate a greater number of dose levels. Stat. Med. 14 911–922.
  • O’Quigley, J. (1992). Estimating the probability of toxicity at the recommended dose following a Phase I clinical trial in cancer. Biometrics 48 853–862.
  • O’Quigley, J. (1999). Another look at two Phase I clinical trial designs (with commentary). Stat. Med. 18 2683–2692.
  • O’Quigley, J. (2002a). Continual reassessment designs with early termination. Biostatistics 3 87–99.
  • O’Quigley, J. (2002b). Curve free and model based CRM designs. Biometrics 58 77–81.
  • O’Quigley, J. (2006). Theoretical study of the continual reassessment method. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 136 1765–1780.
  • O’Quigley, J. and Chevret, S. (1991). Methods for dose finding studies in cancer clinical trials: A review and results of a Monte Carlo study. Stat. Med. 10 1647–1664.
  • O’Quigley, J., Hughes, M. and Fenton, T. (2001). Dose finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics 57 1018–1029.
  • O’Quigley, J. and Paoletti, X. (2003). Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 59 429–439.
  • O’Quigley, J. and Reiner, E. (1998). A stopping rule for the continual reassessment method. Biometrika 85 741–748.
  • O’Quigley, J. and Shen, L. Z. (1996). Continual reassessment method: A likelihood approach. Biometrics 52 163–174.
  • O’Quigley, J., Paoletti, X. and Maccario, J. (2002). Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics 3 51–56.
  • O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M. and Fisher, L. (1990). Continual reassessment method: A practical design for Phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46 33–48.
  • O’Quigley, J., Shen, L. and Gamst, A. (1999). Two sample continual reassessment method. J. Biopharm. Statist. 9 17–44.
  • Paoletti, X., O’Quigley, J. and Maccario, J. (2004). Design efficiency in dose finding studies. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 45 197–214.
  • Piantadosi, S. and Liu, G. (1996). Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat. Med. 15 1605–1618.
  • Shen, L. Z. and O’Quigley, J. (1996). Consistency of continual reassessment method in dose finding studies. Biometrika 83 395–406.
  • Shen, L. Z. and O’Quigley, J. (2000). Using a one-parameter model to sequentially estimate the root of a regression function. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 34 357–369.
  • Shu, J. and O’Quigley, J. (2008). Dose escalation designs in oncology: ADEPT and the CRM. Stat. Med. 27 5345–5353.
  • Silvapulle, M. J. (1981). On the existence of maximum likelihood estimators for the binomial response models. J. R. Stat. Soc. B Stat. Methodol. 43 310–313.
  • Storer, B. E. (1989). Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45 925–937.
  • Tighiouart, M., Rogatko, A. and Babb, J. (2005). Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials: Dose escalation with overdose control. Stat. Med. 24 2183–2196.
  • Whitehead, J. and Brunier, H. (1995). Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Stat. Med. 14 885–893.
  • Whitehead, J. and Williamson, D. (1998). Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. J. Biopharm. Statist. 8 445–467.
  • Whitehead, J., Thygesen, H. and Whitehead, A. (2010). A Bayesian dose-finding procedure for phase I clinical trials based only on the assumption of monotonicity. Stat. Med. 29 1808–1824.
  • Wu, C. F. J. (1985). Efficient sequential designs with binary data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 80 974–984.
  • Wu, C. F. J. (1986). Maximum likelihood recursion and stochastic approximation in sequential designs. Adaptive Statistical Procedures and Related Topics (J. van Ryzin, ed.). Institute of Mathematical Statistics Monograph 8 298–313. IMS, Hayward, CA.
  • Yin, G. and Yuan, Y. (2009). Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in Phase I clinical trials. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 104 954–968.
  • Zohar, S. and O’Quigley, J. (2006a). Identifying the most successful dose (MSD) in dose-finding studies in cancer. Pharmaceutical Statistics 5 187–199.
  • Zohar, S. and O’Quigley, J. (2006b). Optimal designs for identifying the most successful dose. Stat. Med. 25 4311–4320.