On a Hybrid Method in Dose Finding Studies

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Combination of multiple testing and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Use of hypotheses tests to assess the significance of the dose-response signal associated with a given candidate dose-response model. Estimation of target dose(s) following the previous model selection step. Illustration of the method with a real data example.

Methods: We assume a set of candidate models potentially reflecting the data generating process. The appropriateness of each individual model is evaluated in terms of contrast tests, where each set of contrast weights describes a specific dose-response shape. Optimum contrast weights are computed, which maxi-mize the non-centrality parameters associated with the contrast tests. A reference set of appropriate candidate models is obtained while controlling the familywise error rate. A single model is then selected from this reference set using standard model selection criteria. The final step is devoted to dose finding by applying inverse regression techniques. This is illustrated for estimating the minimum effective dose.

Results: The method is as powerful as competing standard dose-response tests to detect an overall dose-related trend. In addition, the possibility is given to estimate one or more target doses of interest. The analysis of a real data example confirms the advantages of the proposed hybrid method.

Conclusions: Combining multiple testing and modeling techniques leads to a powerful tool, which uses the advantages of both approaches: Rigid error control at the significance testing step and flexibility at the dose estimation step. The method can be extended to handle more general linear models including covariates and factorial treatment structures.

• References

• 1 Bates DM, Watts DG. Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. New York: Wiley; 1988
  Google Scholar
• 2 Tamhane AC, Hochberg Y, Dunnett CW. Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics 1996; 52: 21-37.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Shimodaira H. An application of multiple comparison techniques to model selection. Ann Inst Stat Math 1998; 50: 1-13.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pizarro J, Guerrero E, Galindo PL. Multiple comparison procedures applied to model selection. Neurocomputing 2002; 48: 155-73.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Tukey JW, Ciminera JL, Heyse JF. Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics 1985; 41: 295-301.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Abelson RP, Tukey JW. Efficient utilization of non-numerical information in quantitative analysis: General theory and the case of simple order. Ann Math Stat 1963; 34: 1347-69.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Branson M, Pinheiro JC, Bretz F. Searching for an adequate dose: Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Novartis Biometrics Technical Report No. 2003–08–20; 2003. Available at the URL. http://www.bioinf.uni-hannover.de/~bretz/paper/TR_MCPMod.pdf
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Genz A, Bretz F. Methods for the computation of multivariate t-probabilities. J Comp Graph Stat 2002; 11: 950-71.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zucchini W. An introduction to model selection. J Math Psych 2000; 44: 41-61.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Biesheuvel E, Hothorn LA. Many-to-one comparisons in stratified designs. Biom J 2002; 44: 101-16.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall PH. On multiple comparisons in R. R Newsletter 2002; 2: 14-7.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Bates DM, Chambers JM. Nonlinear models. Chapter 10 of “Statistical Models in S”. Chambers JM, Hastie TJ. (eds) Pacific Grove: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole; 1992
  Google Scholar
• 13 Ratkowsky DA. Handbook of nonlinear regression models. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1989
  Google Scholar
• 14 Knafl G, Spiegelman C, Sacks J, Ylvisaker D. Nonparametric calibration. Technometrics 1984; 26: 233-41.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar