Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>E1684 was the pivotal adjuvant melanoma trial for establishment of high-dose interferon (IFN) as effective therapy of high-risk melanoma patients. E1690 was an intriguing effort to corroborate E1684, and the differences between the o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ibrahim Joseph G, Chen Ming-Hui, Chu Haitao
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2012-11-01
Series:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/183
_version_ 1818857110658613248
author Ibrahim Joseph G
Chen Ming-Hui
Chu Haitao
author_facet Ibrahim Joseph G
Chen Ming-Hui
Chu Haitao
author_sort Ibrahim Joseph G
collection DOAJ
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>E1684 was the pivotal adjuvant melanoma trial for establishment of high-dose interferon (IFN) as effective therapy of high-risk melanoma patients. E1690 was an intriguing effort to corroborate E1684, and the differences between the outcomes of these trials have embroiled the field in controversy over the past several years. The analyses of E1684 and E1690 were carried out separately when the results were published, and there were no further analyses trying to perform a single analysis of the combined trials.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>In this paper, we consider such a joint analysis by carrying out a Bayesian analysis of these two trials, thus providing us with a consistent and coherent methodology for combining the results from these two trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Bayesian analysis using power priors provided a more coherent flexible and potentially more accurate analysis than a separate analysis of these data or a frequentist analysis of these data. The methodology provides a consistent framework for carrying out a single unified analysis by combining data from two or more studies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Such Bayesian analyses can be crucial in situations where the results from two theoretically identical trials yield somewhat conflicting or inconsistent results.</p>
first_indexed 2024-12-19T08:35:11Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3a3db679398b4246af083aa52317c23e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2288
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-19T08:35:11Z
publishDate 2012-11-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Medical Research Methodology
spelling doaj.art-3a3db679398b4246af083aa52317c23e2022-12-21T20:29:03ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882012-11-0112118310.1186/1471-2288-12-183Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690Ibrahim Joseph GChen Ming-HuiChu Haitao<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>E1684 was the pivotal adjuvant melanoma trial for establishment of high-dose interferon (IFN) as effective therapy of high-risk melanoma patients. E1690 was an intriguing effort to corroborate E1684, and the differences between the outcomes of these trials have embroiled the field in controversy over the past several years. The analyses of E1684 and E1690 were carried out separately when the results were published, and there were no further analyses trying to perform a single analysis of the combined trials.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>In this paper, we consider such a joint analysis by carrying out a Bayesian analysis of these two trials, thus providing us with a consistent and coherent methodology for combining the results from these two trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Bayesian analysis using power priors provided a more coherent flexible and potentially more accurate analysis than a separate analysis of these data or a frequentist analysis of these data. The methodology provides a consistent framework for carrying out a single unified analysis by combining data from two or more studies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Such Bayesian analyses can be crucial in situations where the results from two theoretically identical trials yield somewhat conflicting or inconsistent results.</p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/183Cure rate modelHistorical dataPrior distributionPosterior distribution
spellingShingle Ibrahim Joseph G
Chen Ming-Hui
Chu Haitao
Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Cure rate model
Historical data
Prior distribution
Posterior distribution
title Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
title_full Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
title_fullStr Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
title_full_unstemmed Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
title_short Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690
title_sort bayesian methods in clinical trials a bayesian analysis of ecog trials e1684 and e1690
topic Cure rate model
Historical data
Prior distribution
Posterior distribution
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/183
work_keys_str_mv AT ibrahimjosephg bayesianmethodsinclinicaltrialsabayesiananalysisofecogtrialse1684ande1690
AT chenminghui bayesianmethodsinclinicaltrialsabayesiananalysisofecogtrialse1684ande1690
AT chuhaitao bayesianmethodsinclinicaltrialsabayesiananalysisofecogtrialse1684ande1690