Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Screening designs for drug development.

David Rossell1, Peter Müller, Gary L Rosner

  • 1Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)
|October 13, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The Impact of Baseline Sleep as a Potential Moderator of Weight Loss Intervention in Breast Cancer Survivors: Results From the POWER-Remote Trial.

Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.)·2025
Same author

Plastic hepatocyte states limit liver cancer development.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

A Bias-Corrected Bayesian Nonparametric Model for Combining Studies With Varying Quality in Meta-Analysis.

Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift·2025
Same author

Graphical model inference with external network data.

Biometrics·2024
Same author

A Bayesian decision-theoretic design for simultaneous biomarker-based subgroup selection and efficacy evaluation.

Statistics in biopharmaceutical research·2023
Same author

Bayesian modelling of response to therapy and drug-sensitivity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Research square·2023
Same journal

A Bayesian functional concurrent zero-inflated Dirichlet-multinomial regression model with application to infant microbiome.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

Towards optimal environmental policies: policy learning under arbitrary bipartite network interference.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

Multilevel functional quantile principal component analysis.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

Adaptive transfer learning for time-to-event modeling with applications in disease risk assessment.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

High-dimensional test for one-sided hypotheses.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

NBSR: a Negative Binomial Softmax Regression model for microRNA-seq data analysis.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
See all related articles

This study introduces a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach for efficient phase II drug screening. The method allows simultaneous evaluation of multiple treatments, enabling adaptive decisions to stop or advance therapies to phase III trials.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trial Design
  • Pharmacology

Background:

  • Phase II clinical trials are critical for drug development, evaluating treatment efficacy and safety.
  • Current screening designs may not optimally handle the dynamic nature of treatment evaluation, including the emergence of new therapies and the discontinuation of others.
  • A need exists for adaptive and statistically rigorous methods to manage multiple treatment arms in early-phase drug screening.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose novel drug screening designs utilizing a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework.
  • To facilitate simultaneous evaluation and adaptive management of multiple treatments in phase II studies.
  • To provide a structured approach for making terminal decisions on treatment progression or abandonment.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Employs a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach for sequential stopping decisions.
  • Utilizes decision boundaries in the space of marginal posterior moments for treatment evaluation.
  • Implements a Monte Carlo simulation algorithm for practical application.

Main Results:

  • The proposed method allows for dynamic adjustments, including the addition of new treatments and removal of underperforming ones.
  • Provides a clear framework for making go/no-go decisions for treatments entering phase III studies.
  • Demonstrates the feasibility of the approach through simulation.

Conclusions:

  • The Bayesian decision-theoretic approach offers a robust framework for optimizing phase II drug screening.
  • The adaptive design enhances efficiency by enabling timely decisions on multiple treatment candidates.
  • An R library is available to facilitate the implementation of this advanced methodology.