Adaptive Seamless Dose-Finding Trials

References

• Auer P (2002) Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. J. Machine Learn. Res. 3(November):397–422.Google Scholar
• Auer P, Ortner R, Szepesvári C (2007) Improved rates for the stochastic continuum-armed bandit problem. Bshouty NH, Gentile C, eds. Learning Theory. COLT 2007, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4539 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 454–468.Google Scholar
• Aziz M, Kaufmann E, Riviere MK (2021) On multi-armed bandit designs for phase I clinical trials. J. Machine Learn. Res. 22(14):1–38.Google Scholar
• Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, et al. (2014) Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J. National Cancer Inst. 106(9):dju244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bastani H, Bayati M (2020) Online decision making with high-dimensional covariates. Oper. Res. 68(1):276–294.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, O’Hair A, Relyea S, Silberholz J (2016) An analytics approach to designing combination chemotherapy regimens for cancer. Management Sci. 62(5):1511–1531.Link, Google Scholar
• Bothwell LE, Kesselheim AS (2017) The real-world ethics of adaptive-design clinical trials. Hastings Center Rep. 47(6):27–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braun TM (2002) The bivariate continual reassessment method: Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clinical Trials 23(3):240–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Wen Z, Xie Y (2019) Dynamic pricing in an evolving and unknown marketplace. Preprint, submitted May 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3382957.Google Scholar
• Chen S, Lin T, King I, Lyu MR, Chen W (2014) Combinatorial pure exploration of multi-armed bandits. Ghahramani Z, Welling M, Cortes C, Lawrence N, Weinberger KQ, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems, vol. 27 (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY), 379–387.Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Gans N, Yapar O (2022) Bayesian sequential learning for clinical trials of multiple correlated medical interventions. Management Sci. 68(7):4919–4938.Link, Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov (2022) Study of peposertib in combination with capecitabine and RT in rectal cancer. Accessed March 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT03770689?rslt=With&type=Intr&phase=01&draw=4&view=results.Google Scholar
• Combes R, Proutière A, Fauquette A (2020) Unimodal bandits with continuous arms: Order-optimal regret without smoothness. Proc. ACM Measurement Anal. Comput. Systems 4(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook N, Hansen AR, Siu LL, Razak ARA (2015) Early phase clinical trials to identify optimal dosing and safety. Molecular Oncology 9(5):997–1007.Crossref, Google Scholar
• den Boer A, Keskin NB (2020) Discontinuous demand functions: Estimation and pricing. Management Sci. 66(10):4516–4534.Link, Google Scholar
• Dragalin V, Fedorov V, Wu Y (2008) Adaptive designs for selecting drug combinations based on efficacy–toxicity response. J. Statist. Planning Inference 138(2):352–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drugan MM, Nowe A (2013) Designing multi-objective multi-armed bandits algorithms: A study. 2013 Internat. Joint Conf. Neural Networks (IJCNN) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1–8.Google Scholar
• Garivier A, Ménard P, Rossi L (2017) Thresholding bandit for dose-ranging: The impact of monotonicity. Preprint, submitted November 13, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04454v1.Google Scholar
• Hao B, Abbasi-Yadkori Y, Wen Z, Cheng G (2019) Bootstrapping upper confidence bound. Wallach H, Larochelle H, Beygelzimer A, d’Alché-Buc F, Fox E, Garnett R, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems, vol. 32 (Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY), 12123–12133.Google Scholar
• Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, Yamamoto S, Rubinstein L, Budd T, Shoemaker D, Emanuel EJ, Grady C (2005) Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. New England J. Medicine 352(9):895–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houede N, Thall PF, Nguyen H, Paoletti X, Kramar A (2010) Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials. Biometrics 66(2):532–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang JH, Su QM, Yang J, Lv YH, He YC, Chen JC, Xu L, Wang K, Zheng QS (2015) Sample sizes in dosage investigational clinical trials: A systematic evaluation. Drug Design Development Therapy 9:305–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ivy SP, Siu LL, Garrett-Mayer E, Rubinstein L (2010) Approaches to phase 1 clinical trial design focused on safety, efficiency, and selected patient populations: A report from the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clinical Cancer Res. 16(6):1726–1736.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jain RK, Lee JJ, Hong D, Markman M, Gong J, Naing A, Wheler J, Kurzrock R (2010) Phase I oncology studies: Evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse. Clinical Cancer Res. 16(4):1289–1297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joulani P, Gyorgy A, Szepesvári C (2013) Online learning under delayed feedback. Sanjoy D, McAllester D, eds. Internat. Conf. Machine Learn., Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 28 (PMLR, New York), 1453–1461.Google Scholar
• Keyvanshokooh E, Zhalechian M, Shi C, Van Oyen MP, Kazemian P (2024) Contextual learning with online convex optimization: Theory and application to chronic diseases. Management Sci. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Kleinberg RD (2005) Nearly tight bounds for the continuum-armed bandit problem. Saul L, Weiss Y, Bottou L, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems, vol. 17 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 697–704.Google Scholar
• Komrokji R, Garcia-Manero G, Ades L, Prebet T, Steensma DP, Jurcic JG, Sekeres MA, et al. (2018) Sotatercept with long-term extension for the treatment of anaemia in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: A phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Lancet Haematol. 5(2):e63–e72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, Rubinstein LV, Christian MC, Simon RM (1994) A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Statist. Medicine 13(18):1799–1806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurzrock R, Benjamin RS (2005) Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, revisited. New England J. Medicine 352(9):930–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurzrock R, Lin CC, Wu TC, Hobbs BP, Pestana RC, Hong DS (2021) Moving beyond 3+ 3: The future of clinical trial design. Amer. Soc. Clinical Oncology Ed. Book 41:e133–e144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL (2009) Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J. National Cancer Inst. 101(10):708–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin R, Yin G (2017) STEIN: A simple toxicity and efficacy interval design for seamless phase I/II clinical trials. Statist. Medicine 36(26):4106–4120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu S, Johnson VE (2016) A robust Bayesian dose-finding design for phase I/II clinical trials. Biostatistics 17(2):249–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Locatelli A, Gutzeit M, Carpentier A (2016) An optimal algorithm for the thresholding bandit problem. Balcan MF, Weinberger KQ, eds. Proc. 33rd Internat. Conf. Machine Learn., Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 48 ( JMLR.org), 1690–1698.Google Scholar
• Mandrekar SJ, Cui Y, Sargent DJ (2007) An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Statist. Medicine 26(11):2317–2330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nebiyou Bekele B, Shen Y (2005) A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics 61(2):343–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L (1990) Continual reassessment method: A practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46(1):33–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pretorius S, Grignolo A (2016) Phase III trial failures: Costly, but preventable. Appl. Clinical Trials 25(8).Google Scholar
• Riviere MK, Yuan Y, Jourdan JH, Dubois F, Zohar S (2018) Phase I/II dose-finding design for molecularly targeted agent: Plateau determination using adaptive randomization. Statist. Methods Medical Res. 27(2):466–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W, Tighiouart M, Khuri FR, Porter A (2007) Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J. Clinical Oncology 25(31):4982–4986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romesser PB, Holliday EB, Philip T, Sarholz B, Kuipers M, Rodriguez-Gutierrez A, Diaz-Padilla I, Miller ED (2020) A multicenter phase Ib/II study of DNA-PK inhibitor peposertib (M3814) in combination with capecitabine and radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J. Clinical Oncology 38(15 suppl).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sacks LV, Shamsuddin HH, Yasinskaya YI, Bouri K, Lanthier ML, Sherman RE (2014) Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000–2012. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 311(4):378–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schipper MJ, Taylor JM, TenHaken R, Matuzak MM, Kong FM, Lawrence TS (2014) Personalized dose selection in radiation therapy using statistical models for toxicity and efficacy with dose and biomarkers as covariates. Statist. Medicine 33(30):5330–5339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slivkins A (2019) Introduction to multi-armed bandits. Foundations Trends Machine Learn. 12(1–2):1–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snapinn S, Chen MG, Jiang Q, Koutsoukos T (2006) Assessment of futility in clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statist. 5(4):273–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Storer BE (1989) Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45(3):925–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tao A, Lin Y, Pinheiro J, Shih WJ (2015) Dose finding method in joint modeling of efficacy and safety endpoints in phase II studies. Internat. J. Statist. Probab. 4(1):33–45.Google Scholar
• Thall PF, Cook JD (2004) Dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60(3):684–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tian Z, Han W, Powell WB (2022) Adaptive learning of drug quality and optimization of patient recruitment for clinical trials with dropouts. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 24(1):580–599.Link, Google Scholar
• Wages NA, Tait C (2015) Seamless phase I/II adaptive design for oncology trials of molecularly targeted agents. J. Biopharmaceutical Statist. 25(5):903–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yeung WY, Reigner B, Beyer U, Diack C, Sabanés Bové D, Palermo G, Jaki T (2017) Bayesian adaptive dose-escalation designs for simultaneously estimating the optimal and maximum safe dose based on safety and efficacy. Pharmaceutical Statist. 16(6):396–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin G (2012) Clinical Trial Design: Bayesian and Frequentist Adaptive Methods (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y (2006) Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 62(3):777–787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Sargent DJ, Mandrekar S (2006) An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Statist. Medicine 25(14):2365–2383.Crossref, Google Scholar