Abstract:For many cancer sites low-dose risks are not known and must be extrapolated from those observed in groups exposed at much higher levels of dose. Measurement error can substantially alter the dose-response shape and hence the extrapolated risk. Recently, there has been considerable attention paid to methods of dealing with shared errors, which are particularly important in occupational and environmental settings. In this paper we test Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and frequentist model averaging (FMA) methods, the first of these similar to the so-called Bayesian two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) method, and both fairly recently proposed, against a very newly proposed modification of the regression calibration method, the extended regression calibration (ERC) method. The quasi-2DMC+BMA method performs well when a linear model is assumed, but poorly when a linear-quadratic model is assumed. FMA performs as well as quasi-2DMC+BMA when a linear model is assumed, and generally much better with a linear-quadratic model, although the coverage probability for the quadratic coefficient is uniformly too high. ERC yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large (50%), although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than the quasi-2DMC+BMA or FMA methods, particularly for the linear-quadratic model. The bias of predicted relative risk at a variety of doses is generally smallest for ERC, and largest for quasi-2DMC+BMA and FMA, with standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum likelihood exhibiting bias in predicted relative risk generally somewhat intermediate between ERC and the other two methods. In general ERC performs best in the scenarios presented, and should be the method of choice in situations where there may be substantial shared error, or suspected curvature in the dose response.

A Default Method to Specify Skeletons for Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials

Robust EM Continual Reassessment Method in Oncology Dose Finding

Bridging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials in Different Ethnic Populations

Bayesian Model Averaging for Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Methods

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

The Continual Reassessment Method For Multiple Toxicity Grades: A Bayesian Model Selection Approach

Phase I Trial Design for Drug Combinations with Bayesian Model Averaging.

PA-CRM: A Continuous Reassessment Method for Pediatric Phase I Oncology Trials with Concurrent Adult Trials.

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials.

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with Bayesian and frequentist model averaging methods

A Bayesian Response-Adaptive Covariate-Balanced Randomization Design with Application to A Leukemia Clinical Trial

The Randomized CRM: An Approach to Overcoming the Long-Memory Property of the CRM

Model‐based bioequivalence approach for sparse pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies: Model selection or model averaging?

Comparison of Model Averaging and Model Selection in Dose Finding Trials Analyzed by Nonlinear Mixed Effect Models

A Calibrated Power Prior Approach to Borrow Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

A survival mediation model with Bayesian model averaging

Sequential Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Dimensional Dose Finding.

Bayesian Model-Averaged Benchmark Dose Analysis Via Reparameterized Quantal-Response Models