These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10363337)

  • 1. Accrual strategies for phase I trials with delayed patient outcome.
    Thall PF; Lee JJ; Tseng CH; Estey EH
    Stat Med; 1999 May; 18(10):1155-69. PubMed ID: 10363337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simulation study of methods for selecting subgroup-specific doses in phase 1 trials.
    Morita S; Thall PF; Takeda K
    Pharm Stat; 2017 Mar; 16(2):143-156. PubMed ID: 28111916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies.
    Heyd JM; Carlin BP
    Stat Med; 1999 Jun; 18(11):1307-21. PubMed ID: 10399198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Adaptive dose selection using efficacy-toxicity trade-offs: illustrations and practical considerations.
    Thall PF; Cook JD; Estey EH
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(5):623-38. PubMed ID: 17037262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. TITE-BOIN-ET: Time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Morita S; Taguri M
    Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):335-349. PubMed ID: 31829517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bayesian dose-finding phase I trial design incorporating historical data from a preceding trial.
    Takeda K; Morita S
    Pharm Stat; 2018 Jul; 17(4):372-382. PubMed ID: 29372582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy.
    Zhang W; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar S
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(14):2365-83. PubMed ID: 16220478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity.
    Thall PF; Lee SJ
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2003; 13(3):251-61. PubMed ID: 12801254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Improved adaptive randomization strategies for a seamless Phase I/II dose-finding design.
    Yan D; Wages NA; Dressler EV
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):333-347. PubMed ID: 30451068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dose finding with continuous outcome in phase I oncology trials.
    Wang Y; Ivanova A
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):102-7. PubMed ID: 25408518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework.
    Doussau A; Asselain B; Le Deley MC; Geoerger B; Doz F; Vassal G; Paoletti X
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):657-65. PubMed ID: 22521954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method.
    Normolle D; Lawrence T
    J Clin Oncol; 2006 Sep; 24(27):4426-33. PubMed ID: 16983110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II-efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts.
    Boonstra PS; Braun TM; Taylor JMG; Kidwell KM; Bellile EL; Daignault S; Zhao L; Griffith KA; Lawrence TS; Kalemkerian GP; Schipper MJ
    Ann Oncol; 2017 Jul; 28(7):1427-1435. PubMed ID: 28200082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dose finding with longitudinal data: simpler models, richer outcomes.
    Paoletti X; Doussau A; Ezzalfani M; Rizzo E; Thiébaut R
    Stat Med; 2015 Sep; 34(22):2983-98. PubMed ID: 26109523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes.
    Lin R; Thall PF; Yuan Y
    Biometrics; 2020 Mar; 76(1):304-315. PubMed ID: 31273750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Statistical designs for early phases of cancer clinical trials.
    Guan S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1109-26. PubMed ID: 23075011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of irrational dose assignment definitions using the continual reassessment method.
    Wages NA; Bagley E
    Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):665-672. PubMed ID: 31547691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
    Huang B; Chappell R
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Phase I (or phase II) dose-ranging clinical trials: proposal of a two-stage Bayesian design.
    Zohar S; Chevret S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2003 Feb; 13(1):87-101. PubMed ID: 12635905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A web tool for designing and conducting phase I trials using the continual reassessment method.
    Wages NA; Petroni GR
    BMC Cancer; 2018 Feb; 18(1):133. PubMed ID: 29402249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.