跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要在序贯随机试验中比较动态治疗策略,并通过逆概率加权处理策略均值与失访。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Lu Wang
Andrea Rotnitzky
Xihong Lin
Peter F. Thall

晚期前列腺癌序贯随机试验中可实施动态治疗策略的评估

研究问题
在毒性或疾病进展使患者无法继续规定化疗时,如何比较允许转入其他治疗或姑息方案的两阶段动态治疗策略?
方法与思路
作者联合编码疗效与毒性,采用临床评分等终点,以逆概率加权估计策略均值,并进行最好与最坏情形敏感性分析。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要将比较目标调整为可实施的换药规则,结合疗效与毒性评估策略,并检查未完成随访者缺失假设的敏感性。
阅读关注点
应核对修改后策略如何定义、评分如何获得、随机化与失访权重如何构造,以及极端敏感性分析覆盖的偏离情形。
阅读边界
依据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;不能推断刊本变化。缺失分析依赖已记录历史可解释失访,摘要未给出策略优劣结果。

原文摘要

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.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文