This note is a response to a recent paper by Korn et al. in which two phase I trial designs were compared, the designs in question being the standard design and the CRM design. The authors concluded that: (i) CRM designs will take longer to complete than standard designs; and (ii) CRM designs are le
An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs
โ Scribed by Chul Ahn
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 88 KB
- Volume
- 17
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0277-6715
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
Phase I clinical trials are designed to identify an appropriate dose for experimentation in phase II and III studies. I present the results from a simulation study to evaluate the performance of nine phase I designs involving the standard design, the two-stage modified Storer's design, the two-stage Korn's design, the one-stage modified continual reassessment method (CRM) designs, and the two-stage modified CRM designs. I compare the performance of the above phase I designs in terms of the following criteria: (i) the proportion of the recommended maximum tolerated dose (MTD) at each dose level; (ii) the proportion of patients treated at each dose level; (iii) the average number of patients to complete the trial; (iv) the probability of toxicity observed; and (v) the average number of cohorts to complete the trial. In general, the one-stage modified CRM II and CRM III designs perform well compared with the other designs considered in this study. The one-stage modified CRM II and III designs require much fewer numbers of cohorts than do the two-stage modified CRM II and III designs. The one-stage modified CRM II and III designs avoid the criticisms of the original CRM by reducing the average number of cohorts and toxicity incidences, while estimating the MTD more accurately than does the standard design.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
The objective of a phase II cancer clinical trial is to screen a treatment that can produce a similar or better response rate compared to the current treatment results. This screening is usually carried out in two stages as proposed by Simon. For ineffective treatment, the trial should terminate at
## Background: A phase i trial involving patients with advanced prostate cancer was conducted to assess the safe administration of dendritic cells (dc) and hla-a0201-specific prostate-specific membrane antigen (psma) peptides (psm-p1 or -p2). thirty-three of the phase i participants were subsequent
Many popular sequential phase II clinical trial designs optimize some criterion subject to constraints on the error probabilities at null and alternative values of the response rate. Such designs may forfeit optimality if one fails to conduct analyses strictly according to plan. Moreover, a decision