IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v79y2023i3p2458-2473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian treatment screening and selection using subgroup‐specific utilities of response and toxicity

Author

Listed:
  • Juhee Lee
  • Peter F. Thall
  • Pavlos Msaouel

Abstract

A Bayesian design is proposed for randomized phase II clinical trials that screen multiple experimental treatments compared to an active control based on ordinal categorical toxicity and response. The underlying model and design account for patient heterogeneity characterized by ordered prognostic subgroups. All decision criteria are subgroup specific, including interim rules for dropping unsafe or ineffective treatments, and criteria for selecting optimal treatments at the end of the trial. The design requires an elicited utility function of the two outcomes that varies with the subgroups. Final treatment selections are based on posterior mean utilities. The methodology is illustrated by a trial of targeted agents for metastatic renal cancer, which motivated the design methodology. In the context of this application, the design is evaluated by computer simulation, including comparison to three designs that conduct separate trials within subgroups, or conduct one trial while ignoring subgroups, or base treatment selection on estimated response rates while ignoring toxicity.

Suggested Citation

  • Juhee Lee & Peter F. Thall & Pavlos Msaouel, 2023. "Bayesian treatment screening and selection using subgroup‐specific utilities of response and toxicity," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2458-2473, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:3:p:2458-2473
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.13738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13738
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.13738?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yanxun Xu & Lorenzo Trippa & Peter Müller & Yuan Ji, 2016. "Subgroup-Based Adaptive (SUBA) Designs for Multi-arm Biomarker Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(1), pages 159-180, June.
    2. Malka Gorfine & Li Hsu, 2011. "Frailty-Based Competing Risks Model for Multivariate Survival Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 415-426, June.
    3. Elena M. Buzaianu & Pinyuen Chen & Lifang Hsu, 2022. "A Curtailed Procedure for Selecting Among Treatments With Two Bernoulli Endpoints," Sankhya B: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Springer;Indian Statistical Institute, vol. 84(1), pages 320-339, May.
    4. Juhee Lee & Peter F. Thall & Katy Rezvani, 2019. "Optimizing natural killer cell doses for heterogeneous cancer patients on the basis of multiple event times," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 68(2), pages 461-474, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fei Jiang & Sebastien Haneuse, 2017. "A Semi-parametric Transformation Frailty Model for Semi-competing Risks Survival Data," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 44(1), pages 112-129, March.
    2. Alexander Begun & Anatoli Yashin, 2019. "Study of the bivariate survival data using frailty models based on Lévy processes," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 103(1), pages 37-67, March.
    3. Frank Eriksson & Thomas Scheike, 2015. "Additive gamma frailty models with applications to competing risks in related individuals," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 677-686, September.
    4. Emanuel Krebs & Jeong E. Min & Elizabeth Evans & Libo Li & Lei Liu & David Huang & Darren Urada & Thomas Kerr & Yih-Ing Hser & Bohdan Nosyk, 2017. "Estimating State Transitions for Opioid Use Disorders," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 483-497, July.
    5. Wang Hao & Cheng Yu, 2014. "Piecewise Cause-Specific Association Analyses of Multivariate Untied or Tied Competing Risks Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Sai H. Dharmarajan & Douglas E. Schaubel & Rajiv Saran, 2018. "Evaluating center performance in the competing risks setting: Application to outcomes of wait†listed end†stage renal disease patients," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 289-299, March.
    7. Peng, Mengjiao & Xiang, Liming & Wang, Shanshan, 2018. "Semiparametric regression analysis of clustered survival data with semi-competing risks," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 53-70.
    8. Jeongyong Kim & Karen Bandeen-Roche, 2019. "Parametric estimation of association in bivariate failure-time data subject to competing risks: sensitivity to underlying assumptions," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 259-279, April.
    9. Yujie Zhong & Richard J. Cook, 2018. "Second-Order Estimating Equations for Clustered Current Status Data from Family Studies Using Response-Dependent Sampling," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 160-183, April.
    10. Ying Zhou & Liang Wang & Tzong-Ru Tsai & Yogesh Mani Tripathi, 2023. "Estimation of Dependent Competing Risks Model with Baseline Proportional Hazards Models under Minimum Ranked Set Sampling," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Holst, Klaus K. & Scheike, Thomas H. & Hjelmborg, Jacob B., 2016. "The liability threshold model for censored twin data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 324-335.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:3:p:2458-2473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.