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 *

264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16258462)

  • 1. Developing drugs that do not cause tumor regression.
    Stadler W
    Clin Adv Hematol Oncol; 2003 Nov; 1(11):654-5. PubMed ID: 16258462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Methodological approaches of clinical studies with targeted therapies].
    Penel N; Saleron J; Lansiaux A; Clisant S; Adenis A; Fournier C; Duhamel A; Bonneterre J
    Bull Cancer; 2008 Feb; 95(2):185-90. PubMed ID: 18304903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Randomized phase II trials: misleading and unreliable.
    Stewart DJ
    J Clin Oncol; 2010 Nov; 28(31):e649-50; author reply e651-3. PubMed ID: 20855829
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Newer phase II trial designs gaining ground.
    Benowitz S
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Oct; 99(19):1428-9. PubMed ID: 17895467
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A strategic framework for novel drug development in multiple myeloma.
    Anderson KC; Hannah AL; Pazdur R; Farrell AT
    Br J Haematol; 2007 Jul; 138(2):153-9. PubMed ID: 17593022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality-of-life end points in cancer clinical trials: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective.
    Beitz J; Gnecco C; Justice R
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1996; (20):7-9. PubMed ID: 8750460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Other paradigms: randomized discontinuation trial design.
    Stadler W
    Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):431-4. PubMed ID: 19826364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimizing randomized phase II trials assessing tumor progression.
    Stone A; Wheeler C; Carroll K; Barge A
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Feb; 28(2):146-52. PubMed ID: 16807129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Research outcomes and recommendations for the assessment of progression in cancer clinical trials from a PhRMA working group.
    Stone AM; Bushnell W; Denne J; Sargent DJ; Amit O; Chen C; Bailey-Iacona R; Helterbrand J; Williams G;
    Eur J Cancer; 2011 Aug; 47(12):1763-71. PubMed ID: 21435858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Early average change in tumor size in a phase 2 trial: efficient endpoint or false promise?
    Rubinstein LV; Dancey JE; Korn EL; Smith MA; Wright JJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Oct; 99(19):1422-3. PubMed ID: 17895470
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Controversy trails adaptive clinical trials.
    Goozner M
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2012 Sep; 104(18):1347-8. PubMed ID: 22984199
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints.
    Jenkins M; Stone A; Jennison C
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):347-56. PubMed ID: 22328327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Rationale and design of the enoximone clinical trials program.
    Lowes BD; Shakar SF; Metra M; Feldman AM; Eichhorn E; Freytag JW; Gerber MJ; Liard JF; Hartman C; Gorczynski R; Evans G; Linseman JV; Stewart J; Robertson AD; Roecker EB; Demets DL; Bristow MR
    J Card Fail; 2005 Dec; 11(9):659-69. PubMed ID: 16360960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Other paradigms: better treatments are identified by better trials: the value of randomized phase II studies.
    Sharma MR; Maitland ML; Ratain MJ
    Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):426-30. PubMed ID: 19826363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design.
    Taylor JM; Braun TM; Li Z
    Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):335-48. PubMed ID: 17060208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Criticism of tumor response criteria raises trial design questions.
    Twombly R
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Feb; 98(4):232-4. PubMed ID: 16478740
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. New paradigm in dose-finding trials: patient-specific dosing and beyond phase I.
    Rogatko A; Babb JS; Tighiouart M; Khuri FR; Hudes G
    Clin Cancer Res; 2005 Aug; 11(15):5342-6. PubMed ID: 16061846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma.
    Llovet JM; Di Bisceglie AM; Bruix J; Kramer BS; Lencioni R; Zhu AX; Sherman M; Schwartz M; Lotze M; Talwalkar J; Gores GJ;
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(10):698-711. PubMed ID: 18477802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Improving the design of phase II trials of cytostatic anticancer agents.
    Stone A; Wheeler C; Barge A
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Feb; 28(2):138-45. PubMed ID: 16843736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Design of randomized controlled trials.
    Stanley K
    Circulation; 2007 Mar; 115(9):1164-9. PubMed ID: 17339574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.