首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Continual Reassessment Method vs. Traditional Empirically-Based Design: Modifications Motivated by Phase I Trials in Pediatric Oncology by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium
【2h】

Continual Reassessment Method vs. Traditional Empirically-Based Design: Modifications Motivated by Phase I Trials in Pediatric Oncology by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium

机译:连续重新评估方法与传统的基于经验的设计:由儿科脑肿瘤联合会在儿科肿瘤学I期试验的推动下进行的修改

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this article we provide additional support for the use of a model based design in pediatric Phase I trials, and present our modifications to the continual reassessment method (CRM), which were largely motivated by specific challenges we encountered in the context of the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium trials. We also summarize the results of our extensive simulations studying the operating characteristics of our modified approach and contrasting it to the empirically based traditional method (TM). Compared to the TM, our simulations indicate that the modified version of CRM is more accurate; exposes fewer patients to potentially toxic doses; and tends to require fewer patients. Further, the CRM based MTD has a consistent definition across trials, which is important, especially in a consortium setting where multiple agents are being tested in studies that are often running simultaneously and accruing from the same patient population.
机译:在本文中,我们为在儿科I期临床试验中使用基于模型的设计提供了额外的支持,并介绍了我们对持续性重新评估方法(CRM)的修改,其主要是由于我们在儿科脑环境中遇到的特定挑战肿瘤联盟试验。我们还总结了广泛模拟的结果,这些模拟研究了改进方法的操作特性,并将其与基于经验的传统方法(TM)进行了对比。与TM相比,我们的仿真表明CRM的修改版本更准确;使更少的患者暴露于潜在的毒性剂量;并且往往需要更少的患者。此外,基于CRM的MTD在各个试验中具有一致的定义,这一点很重要,尤其是在财团环境中,该研究中经常同时进行并来自同一患者人群的研究中正在测试多种药物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号