This site is devoted to the lay outreach component of my research programme in dose individualization for cancer treatments. At the core of this research lies a methodological framework which I call Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT).
Bibliography
1. Norris DC. Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT) should supersede ‘the’ Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) in oncology dose-finding trials. F1000Research. 2017;6:112. doi:10.12688/f1000research.10624.3. [lay explanation]
2. –––. Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT) should supplant ‘the’ MTD. May 2017. [podium presentation] Symposium on Dose Selection for Cancer Treatment Drugs, Stanford Center for Innovative Study Design (CISD) May 12, 2017. doi:10.7490/f1000research.1114209.1.
3. –––. Costing ‘the’ MTD. bioRxiv. August 2017:150821. doi:10.1101/150821. [lay explanation] [2-minute video]
4. –––. Costing ‘the’ MTD: What Is the Economic and Human Cost of 1-Size-Fits-All Dose Finding in Oncology? [poster] Presented at 8th American Conference on Pharmacometrics (ACoP8), October 16, 2017. doi:10.7490/f1000research.1114988.1.
5. –––. One-size-fits-all dosing in oncology wastes money, innovation and lives. Drug Discovery Today. 2018;23(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2017.11.008. [Shiny app]
6. –––. Precautionary Coherence Unravels Dose Escalation Designs. bioRxiv. December 2017:240846. doi:10.1101/240846. [lay explanation] [Shiny+D3 app]
7. –––. Costing ‘the’ MTD … in 2-D. bioRxiv. July 2018:370817. doi:10.1101/370817 [lay explanation]
8. –––. Ethical Review and Methodologic Innovation in Phase 1 Cancer Trials. JAMA Pediatrics. April 2019. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0811 [2-minute video]
9. –––. Impeachment of One-Size-Fits-All Dosing for Obstruction of Synergism. Published online December 4, 2019. https://osf.io/3hcdb/ [2-minute video] [Tweetorial]
10. –––. Comment on Wages et al., Coherence principles in interval-based dose finding. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2019, DOI: 10.1002/pst.1974. Pharmaceutical Statistics. March 2020. doi:10.1002/pst.2016
11. –––. Retrospective analysis of a fatal dose-finding trial. arXiv:2004.12755 [stat, q-bio]. April 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12755 [Tweetorial]
12. Norris DC, Sen S, Groisberg R, Subbiah V. Patient-Centered, Physician-Investigator Friendly Pragmatic Phase I/II Trial Designs—The 4P Model. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2020;95(11):2566-2568. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.09.009
13 Norris DC. What Were They Thinking? Pharmacologic priors implicit in a choice of 3+3 dose-escalation design. arXiv:2012.05301 [stat, q-bio]. December 9, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05301 [Tweetorial]