Estimands for Early Phase Dose Optimization Trials in Oncology

Ayon Mukherjee; Jonathan L. Moscovici; Zheng Liu

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2501.18930

Estimands for Early Phase Dose Optimization Trials in Oncology

Ayon Mukherjee·Jonathan L. Moscovici·Zheng Liu

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Phase I dose escalation trials in oncology generally aim to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). However, with the advent of molecular targeted therapies and antibody drug conjugates, dose limiting toxicities are less frequently observed, giving rise to the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD), which considers both efficacy and toxicity. The Estimand framework presented in the addendum of the ICH E9(R1) guidelines strengthens the dialogue between different stakeholders by bringing in greater clarity in the clinical trial objectives and by providing alignment between the targeted estimand under consideration and the statistical analysis methods. However, there lacks clarity in implementing this framework in early phase dose optimization studies. This manuscript aims at discussing the Estimand framework for dose optimization trials in oncology considering efficacy and toxicity through utility functions. Such trials should include Pharmacokinetics (PK) data, toxicity data, and efficacy data. Based on these data, the analysis methods used to identify the optimized dose/s are also described. Focusing on optimizing the utility function to estimate the OBD, the population-level summary measure should reflect only the properties used for the estimating this utility function. A detailed strategy recommendation for intercurrent events has been provided using a real-life oncology case study. Key recommendations regarding the estimand attributes include that in a seamless Phase I/II dose optimization trial, the treatment attribute should start when the subject receives the first dose. We argue that such a framework brings in additional clarity to dose optimization trial objectives and strengthens the understanding of the drug under consideration that would enable the correct dose to move to Phase II of clinical development.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ayon Mukherjee, Jonathan L. Moscovici, Zheng Liu. 2025-01-31. Estimands for Early Phase Dose Optimization Trials in Oncology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18930

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗