IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v92y2005i4p863-873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coherence principles in dose-finding studies

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Kuen Cheung

Abstract

This paper studies the coherence conditions of dose-finding methods in the context of phase I clinical trials, where the objective is to estimate a targeted quantile of the unknown dose-toxicity curve. Most phase I methods are outcome-adaptive, and thus escalate or de-escalate doses for future patients based on the previous observations. An escalation for a new patient is said to be coherent only when the previous patient does not show sign of toxicity. Likewise, a de-escalation is coherent only when a toxic outcome has just been seen. The coherence conditions, motivated by ethical concerns in trial conduct, are satisfied by many statistical designs in the literature, but not by some commonly used modifications of the methods. This paper shows examples in which coherence is violated, and discusses how the coherence principles may be applied to calibrate a two-stage design and to deal with situations with delayed toxicity. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Kuen Cheung, 2005. "Coherence principles in dose-finding studies," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 92(4), pages 863-873, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:92:y:2005:i:4:p:863-873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/92.4.863
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jay Bartroff & Tze Leung Lai, 2011. "Incorporating Individual and Collective Ethics into Phase I Cancer Trial Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 596-603, June.
    2. M. Clertant & J. O’Quigley, 2017. "Semiparametric dose finding methods," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1487-1508, November.
    3. Anastasia Ivanova & Se Hee Kim, 2009. "Dose Finding for Continuous and Ordinal Outcomes with a Monotone Objective Function: A Unified Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 307-315, March.
    4. Ying Kuen Cheung, 2014. "Simple benchmark for complex dose finding studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 389-397, June.
    5. Nolan A. Wages & Mark R. Conaway & John O'Quigley, 2011. "Continual Reassessment Method for Partial Ordering," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1555-1563, December.
    6. Graham M. Wheeler, 2018. "Incoherent dose-escalation in phase I trials using the escalation with overdose control approach," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 801-811, June.

    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:oup:biomet:v:92:y:2005:i:4:p:863-873. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    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.