English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

3066    Background: Other than the 3+3 design, new model-based statistical designs like the mTPI design (Ji and Wang, 2013, JCO) are alternative choices for oncology dose-finding trials, including immune oncology dose-finding trials (Atkins et al., 2018, Lancet Oncology). One major criticism of the 3+3 design is that it is based on simple rules, does not depend on statistical models for inference, and leads to unsafe and unreliable operating characteristics. However, the rule-based nature allows 3+3 to be easily understood and implemented in practice, making it practically attractive and friendly. Can friendly rule-based designs achieve great performance seen in model-based designs? For four decades, the answer has been NO. Methods: We propose a new rule-based design called i3+3, where the letter "i" represents the word "interval". The i3+3 design is based on simple but more clever rules that account for the variabilities in the observed data. In short, the i3+3 design simply asks clinicians to compare observed toxicity rates with a prespecified toxicity interval, and make dose escalation decisions according to three simple rules. No sophisticated modeling is needed and the entire design is transparent to clinicians. Results: We compare the operating characteristics for the proposed i3+3 design with other popular phase I designs by simulation. The i3+3 design is far superior than the 3+3 design in trial safety and the ability to identify the true MTD. Compared with model-based phase I designs, i3+3 also demonstrates comparable performances. In other words, the i3+3 design possesses both simplicity and transparency of the rule-based approaches, and the superior operating characteristics seen in model-based approaches. An online R Shiny tool is provided to illustrate the i3+3 design, although in practice it requires no software to design or conduct a dose-finding trial using the design. Conclusions: The i3+3 design could be a practice-altering method for the clinical community. It may increase the safety and efficiency of dose finding trials.

The i3+3 design for phase I clinical trials.