BMA-CRM Simulator
    
        The BMA-CRM Simulator is an easy-to-use implementation of both the BMA-CRM and DA-CRM
        dose finding methods.
        
        Bayesian Model Averaging with Continual Reassessment
        Method by Guosheng Yin and Ying Yuan.
        
        Bayesian Data Augmentation Dose Finding with Continual
        Reassessment Method and Delayed Toxicity by Suyu Liu, Guosheng Yin
        and Ying Yuan.
    
    
         
    
    
        See also the BMA Method
            Description, the DA
                Method Description and the 
                    User's Guide available here and also included with the software.
        NOTE: See the “What’s New” sections below.
    
    
        Note that this version (2.2.4) of BMA-CRM Simulator comes with the User's Guide
        for version 2.2.1. We are updating the User's Guide, but didn't want to
        disappoint by delaying the availability of this widely requested current version
        of BMA-CRM Simulator. In the meantime, we have added many tooltips and messages
        to help you operate the software.
    
    
        The software was developed by John Aven, Richard Herrick, Clift Norris, John Venier
        and Lin Zhang.  The software tools were: Microsoft Visual Studio 2013; C# for
        the user interface, and C++ for the calculation engine.  (February, 2018)
    
    System Requirements
    
        - Windows 7 SP1
- Microsoft .NET Framework version 4.5.2 (x86 and x64)
- Microsoft Visual C++ 2013 Runtime Libraries (x86)
- Windows Installer 4.5
- Minimum Screen Resolution 1280x769
        If any required software component is absent from your system, the installation
        process will install it.
    
    What's New in V2.2.4
    
        - An issue with the installer has been fixed.
- There are other improvements.
What was New in V2.2.3
    
        - Menus are modernized; a minor bug in the “Recent Files” system is fixed.
- The .NET Framework used has been upgraded to 4.5.2.
- There are other improvements.
What was New in V2.2.2
    
        - 
            The Trial Conduct Tab is Operational! The Trial Conduct tab has been completely
            rewritten to improve it and to accommodate
            trials which use Data Augmentation. Now you can delete patients, get a trial conduct
            decision without committing to treating a
            patient, view the state of the trial at any point in its history, and more. Each
            trial decision now comes with an extensive
            description explaining the details of the decision and how it was obtained.
        
- 
            Scenario Grid: Scenarios can now be given meaningful names and can be reordered.
        
- 
            MTD Determination: The rules for determining the MTD have been changed to
            better match users' expectations and actual practice.
            Note that this change should not affect well-designed trials whose maximum sample
            size is reasonably large (see below).
            The MTD is now required to have had at least three patients treated on it.  If the
            dose level closest to the target probability
            of toxicity without skipping untried dose levels has had fewer than three patients
            treated on it, the highest dose level lower than
            this dose level which has had at least three patients treated on it is determined
            to be the MTD. If no such dose level exists, the MTD
            is determined to be the dose level closest to the target probability of toxicity
            without skipping untried dose levels, but you are
            warned that the determination of the MTD has a high degree of uncertainty because
            there were too few patients treated at that dose
            level.
        
- 
            Maximum Sample Size: We now recommend that the maximum sample size be at
            least three times the number of dose levels. If a
            lower maximum sample size is specified, we warn you and include a warning in the
            simulation output.
        
- 
            Dose Level Escalation: For increased safety and to better match users'
            expectations and actual practice, we now limit dose
            level escalation in some circumstances. We now do not allow escalation away from
            a dose level for which the current raw proportion of
            toxicities is above the target probability of toxicity.  That is to say, if the
            proportion of toxicities among all currently fully observed
            patient outcomes at a dose level is above the target probability of toxicity, we
            do not allow escalation away from that dose level. If
            escalation would otherwise be recommended but this rule applies, it is still recommended
            to treat a patient, but the dose level on which the
            patient should be treated is lower than it would otherwise be. Note that in the
            rare circumstance that this rule needs to be applied to a
            dose level at which no patient outcomes have been fully observed, it is assumed
            that the dose level does not have a raw proportion of
            toxicities above the target probability of toxicity. This is because this rare circumstance
            should only arise with trial designs which
            assume for other reasons that escalating away from such a dose level is acceptable.
        
- 
            Power User Features: Some features have been added for use by experts investigating
            the Data Augmentation calculations. These
            features are not available by default.
        
- Many improvements and bug fixes.
        
What was New in V2.2.1
    
        - 
            Trial Design:
            
                - 
                    Data Augmentation: If desired, the trial design will use Data Augmentation
                    (DA) when patient
                    data are missing.  This allows treatment decisions and trial safety decisions to
                    be made without
                    waiting for missing data to become known, greatly reducing the expected trial duration.
                    When DA is
                    chosen, you are limited to one set of prior probabilities of toxicity for the dose
                    levels.
                    More information about using Data Augmentation in CRM can be found in
                    DA Method Description.
                    When DA is chosen, you must specify additional trial design parameters specifically
                    for DA.
                
- 
                    Toxicity Assessment Period: You now must specify the toxicity assessment
                    period.  Of course
                    this needs to be specified for DA, but it is also now used in simulation with or
                    without DA so that
                    we may estimate expected trial duration.
                
 
- 
            Simulation:
            
                - 
                    Accrual Rate: You must specify the accrual rate when simulating, so that
                    expected trial duration may
                    be estimated. The accrual rate may also affect the operating characteristics when
                    DA is chosen.
                
- 
                    Proportion of Toxicities Observed in Second Half of Assessment Period: This,
                    along with the probability
                    of toxicity, parameterizes the Weibull distribution now used to simulate time to
                    toxicity at each dose level.
                
- 
                    Multithreading: The simulations are multithreaded on machines with more than
                    two cores, greatly reducing
                    the time required to perform them.
                
- 
                    Trial Duration: Expected trial duration (total trial time) is estimated.
                
 
- Many other improvements.
        
What was New in V2.1.2
    
        - 
            IMPORTANT: The inputs for the sets of prior probability of toxicity at each
            dose
            level are now user-specified as prior MEDIANS. (Previous versions expected
            them
            to be prior means, and calculated the corresponding prior medians.) So what
                you input for these values has changed
            since it is a different statistic compared
            to versions older than v2.1. For the dose-toxicity model
            πj(α) = pjexp(α),
            the inputs for the prior probabilities of toxicity at each dose level are now used
            directly as the pj values, which are the prior medians. See this
            technical report
            for an explanation of the prior median, and note that the
            BMA Method Description
            describes the old method of using the inputs as prior means, but is otherwise correct.
        
- 
            NOTE: Simulation files created with older versions will not open in v2.1.
            If you
            wish to use an old trial design you will need to re-enter your design, bearing in
            mind
            that the sets of prior probabilities of toxicity at each dose level are now prior
            medians. If you use the same input values with v2.1 as you used with an older
            version and re-simulate, you may obtain different results.
        
- Various updates and bug fixes.
- The program occasionally sends usage statistics and crash reports to our biostatistics
            software support team to improve your experience using the software.
        
References
    
        - 
            Guosheng Yin, and
            Ying Yuan
            (2009). Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method in Phase I Clinical
            Trials.
            Journal of American Statistical Association, 104, 954-968.
        
- 
            Suyu Liu,
            Guosheng Yin, and
            Ying Yuan
            (2013). Bayesian Data Augmentation Dose Finding with Continual Reassessment Method
            and Delayed
            Toxicity. The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol 7, No. 4, 2138-2156