↓ Skip to main content

Model-Based Adaptive Optimal Design (MBAOD) Improves Combination Dose Finding Designs: an Example in Oncology

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Model-Based Adaptive Optimal Design (MBAOD) Improves Combination Dose Finding Designs: an Example in Oncology
Published in
The AAPS Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1208/s12248-018-0206-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe B. Pierrillas, Sylvain Fouliard, Marylore Chenel, Andrew C. Hooker, Lena F. Friberg, Mats O. Karlsson

Abstract

Design of phase 1 combination therapy trials is complex compared to single therapy trials. In this work, model-based adaptive optimal design (MBAOD) was exemplified and evaluated for a combination of paclitaxel and a hypothetical new compound in a phase 1 study to determine the best dosing regimen for a phase 2 trial. Neutropenia was assumed as the main toxicity and the dose optimization process targeted a 33% probability of grade 4 neutropenia and maximal efficacy (based on preclinical studies) by changing the dose amount of both drugs and the dosing schedule for the new drug. Different starting conditions (e.g., initial dose), search paths (e.g., maximal change in dose intensity per step), and stopping criteria (e.g., "3 + 3 rule") were explored. The MBAOD approach was successfully implemented allowing the possibility of flexible designs with the modification of doses and dosing schedule throughout the trial. The 3 + 3 rule was shown to be highly conservative (selection of a dosing regimen with at least 90% of the possible maximal efficacy in less than 21% of the cases) but also safer (selection of a toxic design in less than 2% of the cases). Without the 3 + 3 rule, better performance was observed (>67% of selected designs were associated with at least 90% of possible maximal efficacy) while the proportion of DLTs per trial was similar. Overall, MBAOD is a promising tool in the context of dose finding studies of combination treatments and was showed to be flexible enough to be associated with requirements imposed by clinical protocols.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Other 5 17%
Professor 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 33%
Mathematics 4 13%
Chemistry 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,378,457
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#795
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,004
of 332,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.