Cited by 108Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Evaluation of Viable Dynamic Treatment Regimes in a Sequentially Randomized Trial of Advanced Prostate Cancer

Open access
Wang, Lu, Rotnitzky, Andrea, Lin, Xihong, Millikan, Randall E., Thall, Peter F.·2012·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

We present new statistical analyses of data arising from a clinical trial designed to compare two-stage dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) for advanced prostate cancer. The trial protocol mandated that patients were to be initially randomized among four chemotherapies, and that those who responded poorly were to be rerandomized to one of the remaining candidate therapies. The primary aim was to compare the DTRs' overall success rates, with success defined by the occurrence of successful responses in each of two consecutive courses of the patient's therapy. Of the one hundred and fifty study participants, forty seven did not complete their therapy per the algorithm. However, thirty five of them did so for reasons that precluded further chemotherapy; i.e. toxicity and/or progressive disease. Consequently, rather than comparing the overall success rates of the DTRs in the unrealistic event that these patients had remained on their assigned chemotherapies, we conducted an analysis that compared viable switch rules defined by the per-protocol rules but with the additional provision that patients who developed toxicity or progressive disease switch to a non-prespecified therapeutic or palliative strategy. This modification involved consideration of bivariate per-course outcomes encoding both efficacy and toxicity. We used numerical scores elicited from the trial's Principal Investigator to quantify the clinical desirability of each bivariate per-course outcome, and defined one endpoint as their average over all courses of treatment. Two other simpler sets of scores as well as log survival time also were used as endpoints. Estimation of each DTR-specific mean score was conducted using inverse probability weighted methods that assumed that missingness in the twelve remaining drop-outs was informative but explainable in that it only depended on past recorded data. We conducted additional worst-best case analyses to evaluate sensitivity of our findings to extreme departures from the explainable drop-out assumption.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.2011.641416

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, L., Rotnitzky, A., Lin, X., Millikan, R. E., & Thall, P. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Thall, Peter F.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2012-06
Volume
107
Issue
498
Pages
493-508
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2167371237
Cited by
108
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA140388, P01CA049639, R37CA076404, R01CA083932, P30CA016672, R35CA197449)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM048704)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI051164)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
dynamic treatment regimes, advanced prostate cancer, chemotherapy, treatment switching, dropout, inverse probability weighting, efficacy-toxicity trade-off

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review