Enhancement of Bayesian optimal interval design by accounting for overdose and underdose errors trade-offs.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Ryo Sadachi, Hiroyuki Sato, Takeo Fujiwara, Akihiro Hirakawa
{"title":"Enhancement of Bayesian optimal interval design by accounting for overdose and underdose errors trade-offs.","authors":"Ryo Sadachi, Hiroyuki Sato, Takeo Fujiwara, Akihiro Hirakawa","doi":"10.1080/10543406.2023.2275766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Model-assisted designs, a new class of dose-finding designs for determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), model only the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) data observed at the current dose based on a simple binomial model and offer the boundaries of DLT for the determination of dose escalation, retention, or de-escalation before beginning the trials. The boundaries for dose-escalation and de-escalation decisions are relevant to the operating characteristics of the design. The well-known model-assisted design, Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN), selects these boundaries to minimize the probability of incorrect decisions at each dose allocation but does not distinguish between overdose and underdose allocations caused by incorrect decisions when calculating the probability of incorrect decisions. Distinguishing between overdose and underdose based on the decision error in the BOIN design is expected to increase the accuracy of MTD determination. In this study, we extended the BOIN design to account for the decision probabilities of incorrect overdose and underdose allocations separately. To minimize the two probabilities simultaneously, we propose utilizing multiple objective optimizations and formulating an approach for determining the boundaries for dose escalation and de-escalation. Comprehensive simulation studies using fixed and randomly generated scenarios of DLT probability demonstrated that the proposed method is superior or comparable to existing interval designs, along with notably better operating characteristics of the proposed method.</p>","PeriodicalId":54870,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2023.2275766","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Model-assisted designs, a new class of dose-finding designs for determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), model only the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) data observed at the current dose based on a simple binomial model and offer the boundaries of DLT for the determination of dose escalation, retention, or de-escalation before beginning the trials. The boundaries for dose-escalation and de-escalation decisions are relevant to the operating characteristics of the design. The well-known model-assisted design, Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN), selects these boundaries to minimize the probability of incorrect decisions at each dose allocation but does not distinguish between overdose and underdose allocations caused by incorrect decisions when calculating the probability of incorrect decisions. Distinguishing between overdose and underdose based on the decision error in the BOIN design is expected to increase the accuracy of MTD determination. In this study, we extended the BOIN design to account for the decision probabilities of incorrect overdose and underdose allocations separately. To minimize the two probabilities simultaneously, we propose utilizing multiple objective optimizations and formulating an approach for determining the boundaries for dose escalation and de-escalation. Comprehensive simulation studies using fixed and randomly generated scenarios of DLT probability demonstrated that the proposed method is superior or comparable to existing interval designs, along with notably better operating characteristics of the proposed method.

考虑过量和剂量不足误差权衡的贝叶斯最优间隔设计改进。
模型辅助设计是一种用于确定最大耐受剂量(MTD)的新型剂量发现设计,基于简单的二项模型,仅对当前剂量下观察到的剂量限制性毒性(DLT)数据进行建模,并在试验开始前为确定剂量递增、保留或递减提供DLT的边界。剂量递增和剂量递减决定的边界与设计的操作特性有关。众所周知的模型辅助设计贝叶斯最优区间(BOIN)选择这些边界以最小化每次剂量分配时错误决策的概率,但在计算错误决策的概率时,没有区分错误决策导致的过量和剂量不足分配。根据BOIN设计中的决策误差来区分过量和剂量不足,有望提高MTD测定的准确性。在本研究中,我们扩展了BOIN设计,以分别考虑不正确的过量和剂量不足分配的决策概率。为了同时最小化这两种可能性,我们建议利用多目标优化并制定确定剂量递增和递减边界的方法。使用固定和随机生成的DLT概率情景进行的综合模拟研究表明,所提出的方法优于或可与现有的区间设计相比较,并且所提出的方法具有明显更好的运行特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
18.20%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, a rapid publication journal, discusses quality applications of statistics in biopharmaceutical research and development. Now publishing six times per year, it includes expositions of statistical methodology with immediate applicability to biopharmaceutical research in the form of full-length and short manuscripts, review articles, selected/invited conference papers, short articles, and letters to the editor. Addressing timely and provocative topics important to the biostatistical profession, the journal covers: Drug, device, and biological research and development; Drug screening and drug design; Assessment of pharmacological activity; Pharmaceutical formulation and scale-up; Preclinical safety assessment; Bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetics; Phase, I, II, and III clinical development including complex innovative designs; Premarket approval assessment of clinical safety; Postmarketing surveillance; Big data and artificial intelligence and applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信