剂量选择标准,根据分级的疗效-毒性结果确定最佳剂量,而不依赖于临床效用。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Statistical Methods in Medical Research Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1177/09622802251327691
Sydney Porter, Anne Eaton, Thomas A Murray
{"title":"剂量选择标准,根据分级的疗效-毒性结果确定最佳剂量,而不依赖于临床效用。","authors":"Sydney Porter, Anne Eaton, Thomas A Murray","doi":"10.1177/09622802251327691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recently, targeted and immunotherapy cancer treatments have motivated dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs rather than toxicity alone. The EffTox and utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) dose-finding designs were developed in response to this need, but may be sensitive to elicited subjective design parameters that reflect the trade-off between efficacy and toxicity. To ease elicitation and reduce subjectivity, we propose dose desirability criteria that only depend on a preferential ordering of the joint efficacy-toxicity outcomes. We propose two novel order-based criteria and compare them with utility-based and contour-based criteria when paired with the design framework and probability models of EffTox and U-BOIN. The proposed dose desirability criteria simplify implementation and improve robustness to the elicited subjective design parameters and perform similarly in simulation studies to the established EffTox and U-BOIN designs when the ordering of the joint outcomes is equivalent. We also propose an alternative dose admissibility criteria based on the joint efficacy and toxicity profile of a dose rather than its marginal toxicity and efficacy profile. We argue that this alternative joint criterion is more consistent with defining dose desirability in terms of efficacy-toxicity trade-offs than the standard marginal admissibility criteria. The proposed methods enhance the usability and robustness of dose-finding designs that account for efficacy-toxicity trade-offs to identify the optimal biological dose.</p>","PeriodicalId":22038,"journal":{"name":"Statistical Methods in Medical Research","volume":" ","pages":"1219-1232"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dose selection criteria to identify the optimal dose based on ranked efficacy-toxicity outcomes without reliance on clinical utilities.\",\"authors\":\"Sydney Porter, Anne Eaton, Thomas A Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09622802251327691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recently, targeted and immunotherapy cancer treatments have motivated dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs rather than toxicity alone. The EffTox and utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) dose-finding designs were developed in response to this need, but may be sensitive to elicited subjective design parameters that reflect the trade-off between efficacy and toxicity. To ease elicitation and reduce subjectivity, we propose dose desirability criteria that only depend on a preferential ordering of the joint efficacy-toxicity outcomes. We propose two novel order-based criteria and compare them with utility-based and contour-based criteria when paired with the design framework and probability models of EffTox and U-BOIN. The proposed dose desirability criteria simplify implementation and improve robustness to the elicited subjective design parameters and perform similarly in simulation studies to the established EffTox and U-BOIN designs when the ordering of the joint outcomes is equivalent. We also propose an alternative dose admissibility criteria based on the joint efficacy and toxicity profile of a dose rather than its marginal toxicity and efficacy profile. We argue that this alternative joint criterion is more consistent with defining dose desirability in terms of efficacy-toxicity trade-offs than the standard marginal admissibility criteria. The proposed methods enhance the usability and robustness of dose-finding designs that account for efficacy-toxicity trade-offs to identify the optimal biological dose.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistical Methods in Medical Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1219-1232\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistical Methods in Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251327691\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistical Methods in Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251327691","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,靶向和免疫疗法的癌症治疗已经开始基于疗效和毒性的权衡来确定剂量,而不仅仅是毒性。EffTox和基于效用的贝叶斯最优区间(U-BOIN)剂量发现设计是为了满足这一需求而开发的,但可能对反映疗效和毒性之间权衡的主观设计参数很敏感。为了简化引出和减少主观性,我们提出了剂量可取性标准,该标准仅依赖于联合疗效-毒性结果的优先顺序。我们提出了两个新的基于顺序的标准,并将它们与基于效用和基于轮廓的标准结合EffTox和U-BOIN的设计框架和概率模型进行了比较。所提出的剂量理想性准则简化了实施,提高了对所得主观设计参数的鲁棒性,并且在模拟研究中,当联合结果的顺序相等时,与已建立的EffTox和U-BOIN设计相似。我们还提出了一种替代剂量允许标准,基于剂量的联合疗效和毒性概况,而不是其边际毒性和疗效概况。我们认为,与标准的边际可接受性标准相比,这一替代性联合标准更符合在药效-毒性权衡方面定义剂量的可取性。提出的方法提高了剂量发现设计的可用性和稳健性,这些设计考虑了药效-毒性权衡,以确定最佳生物剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dose selection criteria to identify the optimal dose based on ranked efficacy-toxicity outcomes without reliance on clinical utilities.

Recently, targeted and immunotherapy cancer treatments have motivated dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs rather than toxicity alone. The EffTox and utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) dose-finding designs were developed in response to this need, but may be sensitive to elicited subjective design parameters that reflect the trade-off between efficacy and toxicity. To ease elicitation and reduce subjectivity, we propose dose desirability criteria that only depend on a preferential ordering of the joint efficacy-toxicity outcomes. We propose two novel order-based criteria and compare them with utility-based and contour-based criteria when paired with the design framework and probability models of EffTox and U-BOIN. The proposed dose desirability criteria simplify implementation and improve robustness to the elicited subjective design parameters and perform similarly in simulation studies to the established EffTox and U-BOIN designs when the ordering of the joint outcomes is equivalent. We also propose an alternative dose admissibility criteria based on the joint efficacy and toxicity profile of a dose rather than its marginal toxicity and efficacy profile. We argue that this alternative joint criterion is more consistent with defining dose desirability in terms of efficacy-toxicity trade-offs than the standard marginal admissibility criteria. The proposed methods enhance the usability and robustness of dose-finding designs that account for efficacy-toxicity trade-offs to identify the optimal biological dose.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Statistical Methods in Medical Research 医学-数学与计算生物学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Statistical Methods in Medical Research is a peer reviewed scholarly journal and is the leading vehicle for articles in all the main areas of medical statistics and an essential reference for all medical statisticians. This unique journal is devoted solely to statistics and medicine and aims to keep professionals abreast of the many powerful statistical techniques now available to the medical profession. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信