Bayesian model averaging for partial ordering continual reassessment methods.

Phase I clinical trials are essential to bringing novel therapies from chemical development to widespread use. Traditional approaches to dose-finding in Phase I trials, such as the '3 + 3' method and the continual reassessment method (CRM), provide a principled approach for escalating across dose levels. However, these methods lack the ability to incorporate uncertainty regarding the dose-toxicity ordering as found in combination drug trials. Under this setting, dose levels vary across multiple drugs simultaneously, leading to multiple possible dose-toxicity orderings. The CRM for partial ordering (POCRM) extends to these settings by allowing for multiple dose-toxicity orderings. In this work, it is shown that the POCRM is vulnerable to 'estimation incoherency' whereby toxicity estimates shift in an illogical way, threatening patient safety and undermining clinician trust in dose-finding models. To this end, the Bayesian model averaged POCRM (BMA-POCRM) is formalized. BMA-POCRM uses Bayesian model averaging to take into account all possible orderings simultaneously, reducing the frequency of estimation incoherencies. We derive novel theoretical guarantees on the estimation coherency of the POCRM and BMA-POCRM. The effectiveness of BMA-POCRM in drug combination settings is demonstrated through a specific instance of estimate incoherency of POCRM and simulation studies. The results highlight the improved safety, accuracy, and reduced occurrence of estimate incoherency in trials applying the BMA-POCRM relative to the POCRM model.

Publication Details

Journal
Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.121690
Primary Topic
Nonlinear Waves and Solitons
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bayesian model averaging for partial ordering continual reassessment methods.

Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Nonlinear Waves and Solitons
article

Bayesian model averaging for partial ordering continual reassessment methods.

article en

Abstract

Phase I clinical trials are essential to bringing novel therapies from chemical development to widespread use. Traditional approaches to dose-finding in Phase I trials, such as the '3 + 3' method and the continual reassessment method (CRM), provide a principled approach for escalating across dose levels. However, these methods lack the ability to incorporate uncertainty regarding the dose-toxicity ordering as found in combination drug trials. Under this setting, dose levels vary across multiple drugs simultaneously, leading to multiple possible dose-toxicity orderings. The CRM for partial ordering (POCRM) extends to these settings by allowing for multiple dose-toxicity orderings. In this work, it is shown that the POCRM is vulnerable to 'estimation incoherency' whereby toxicity estimates shift in an illogical way, threatening patient safety and undermining clinician trust in dose-finding models. To this end, the Bayesian model averaged POCRM (BMA-POCRM) is formalized. BMA-POCRM uses Bayesian model averaging to take into account all possible orderings simultaneously, reducing the frequency of estimation incoherencies. We derive novel theoretical guarantees on the estimation coherency of the POCRM and BMA-POCRM. The effectiveness of BMA-POCRM in drug combination settings is demonstrated through a specific instance of estimate incoherency of POCRM and simulation studies. The results highlight the improved safety, accuracy, and reduced occurrence of estimate incoherency in trials applying the BMA-POCRM relative to the POCRM model.

Apollo (University of Cambridge)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Medical Research Council
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Nonlinear Waves and Solitons
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.