Skip to main content
Log in

Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity

  • Published:
Lifetime Data Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In oncology, toxicity is typically observable shortly after a chemotherapy treatment, whereas efficacy, often characterized by tumor shrinkage, is observable after a relatively long period of time. In a phase II clinical trial design, we propose a Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We model efficacy as a time-to-event endpoint and toxicity as a binary endpoint, sharing common random effects in order to induce dependence between the bivariate outcomes. More generally, we allow the randomization probability to depend on patients’ specific covariates, such as prognostic factors. Early stopping boundaries are constructed for toxicity and futility, and a superior treatment arm is recommended at the end of the trial. Following the setup of a recent renal cancer clinical trial at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we conduct extensive simulation studies under various scenarios to investigate the performance of the proposed method, and compare it with available Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert JH, Chib S (1993) Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. J Am Stat Assoc 88: 669–679

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DA, Eick SG (1995) Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Stat Med 14: 231–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang MN, Therneau TM, Wieand HS, Cha SS (1987) Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 43: 865–874

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Conaway MR, Petroni GR (1996) Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity. Biometrics 52: 1375–1386

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B 34: 187–220

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eick SG (1988) The two-armed bandit with delayed responses. Ann Stat 16: 254–264

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Eisele J (1994) The doubly adaptive biased coin design for sequential clinical trials. J Stat Plan Inference 38: 249–262

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming TR (1982) One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38: 143–151

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gehan EA (1961) The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis 13: 346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu F, Rosenberger WF (2006) The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Louis TA (1977) Sequential allocation in clinical trials comparing two exponential survival curves. Biometrics 33: 627–634

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ (2009) Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer 45: 275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger WF (1996) New directions in adaptive designs. Stat Sci 11: 137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon R (1989) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controll Clin Trials 10: 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Cook JD (2004) Dose-finding based on efficacy–toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60: 684–693

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thall PF, Wathen JK (2007) Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 43: 859–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei LJ, Durham S (1978) The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 73: 840–843

    Article  MATH  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: 777–787

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Y, Yin G (2009) Bayesian dose finding by jointly modeling toxicity and efficacy as time-to-event outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser C 58: 719–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelen M (1969) Play the winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc 64: 131–146

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Rosenberger WF (2007) Response-adaptive randomization for survival trials: the parametric approach. Appl Stat 56: 153–165

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guosheng Yin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lei, X., Yuan, Y. & Yin, G. Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity. Lifetime Data Anal 17, 156–174 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-010-9163-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-010-9163-z

Keywords

Navigation