IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v65y2016i2p273-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian group sequential clinical trial design using total toxicity burden and progression-free survival

Author

Listed:
  • Brian P. Hobbs
  • Peter F. Thall
  • Steven H. Lin

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="rssc12117-abs-0001"> Delivering radiation to eradicate a solid tumour while minimizing damage to nearby critical organs remains a challenge. For oesophageal cancer, radiation therapy may damage the heart or lungs, and several qualitatively different, possibly recurrent toxicities that are associated with chemoradiation or surgery may occur, each at two or more possible grades. We describe a Bayesian group sequential clinical trial design, based on total toxicity burden (TTB) and the duration of progression-free survival, for comparing two radiation therapy modalities for oesophageal cancer. Each patient's toxicities are modelled as a multivariate doubly stochastic Poisson point process, with marks identifying toxicity grades. Each grade of each type of toxicity is assigned a severity weight, elicited from clinical oncologists who are familiar with the disease and treatments. TTB is defined as a severity-weighted sum over the different toxicities that may occur up to 12 months from the start of treatment. Latent frailties are used to formulate a multivariate model for all outcomes. Group sequential decision rules are based on posterior mean TTB and progression-free survival time. The design proposed is shown to provide both larger power and smaller mean sample size when compared with a conventional bivariate group sequential design.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian P. Hobbs & Peter F. Thall & Steven H. Lin, 2016. "Bayesian group sequential clinical trial design using total toxicity burden and progression-free survival," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 273-297, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:65:y:2016:i:2:p:273-297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rssc.2016.65.issue-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:jorssc:v:65:y:2016:i:2:p:273-297. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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.