Table 6.

Comparison of summary statistics for two-agent dose-finding designs, with (4,4), (3,3), or (2,2) dimensional bivariate outcomes.

		Scenario
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
4 Eff, 4 Tox Levels PDS	Rselect	76	77	80	78	78	78	81	78	80	89	93	94
	Rtreat	65	63	61	72	70	67	70	70	65	85	79	67
	% None	2	2	1	0	1	7	1	1	0	0	95	96
	% Best	32	28	32	46	39	34	39	33	48	44	–	–
3 Eff, 3 Tox Levels PDS	Rselect	77	75	83	75	76	81	84	77	66	88	91	92
	Rtreat	66	63	63	70	69	67	71	69	59	85	79	67
	% None	2	2	1	0	1	6	1	1	1	0	94	95
	% Best	35	28	38	36	33	40	47	35	25	46	–	–
3 Eff, 3 Tox Levels GAO	Rselect	84	71	87	67	63	72	89	73	60	87	93	97
	Rtreat	72	64	64	67	64	63	76	68	51	81	77	67
	% None	2	3	1	0	1	4	1	1	0	1	94	93
	% Best	53	25	67	24	5	19	70	26	25	61	–	–
2 Eff, 2 Tox Levels PDS	Rselect	77	79	72	67	80	77	75	78	61	84	89	89
	Rtreat	67	67	60	69	72	67	67	70	58	83	79	66
	% None	3	2	1	0	1	7	1	1	1	0	95	96
	% Best	34	30	19	13	43	30	23	32	15	46	–	–
2 Eff, 2 Tox Levels Yuan-Yin (2011) Design	Rselect	81	77	67	65	75	72	71	73	57	86	91	51
	Rtreat	74	66	57	59	63	67	53	58	62	81	96	64
	% None	20	10	8	2	12	14	7	11	9	2	100	8
	% Best	31	29	20	8	26	22	23	21	18	48	–	–
2 Eff, 2 Tox Levels Wages-Conaway (2014) Design	Rselect	74	77	70	69	76	65	77	74	51	86	100	77
	Rtreat	73	69	60	66	68	58	64	62	47	79	97	61
	% None	0	2	1	0	2	5	0	2	0	0	71	63
	% Best	12	34	21	11	29	13	33	23	9	62	–	–
No Eff, 2 Tox Levels PO-CRM, Target 0.35	Rselect	79	73	55	64	71	64	60	61	61	90	100	81
	Rtreat	78	68	49	62	63	57	56	55	55	84	99	71
	% None	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	% Best	27	28	21	3	20	17	13	15	19	65	–	–