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 *

549 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17060208)

  • 61. Predicting the outcome of phase III trials using phase II data: a case study of clinical trial simulation in late stage drug development.
    De Ridder F
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Mar; 96(3):235-41. PubMed ID: 15733220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Examining heterogeneity in phase II trial designs may improve success in phase III.
    Tuma RS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Feb; 100(3):164-6. PubMed ID: 18230788
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Drug Development Model: a case study in Bayesian clinical trial simulation.
    Nixon RM; O'Hagan A; Oakley J; Madan J; Stevens JW; Bansback N; Brennan A
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(4):371-89. PubMed ID: 19340851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Determining optimal sample sizes for multi-stage randomized clinical trials using value of information methods.
    Willan A; Kowgier M
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(4):289-300. PubMed ID: 18697843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. 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]  

  • 66. Effect of a misspecification of response rates on type I and type II errors, in a phase II Simon design.
    Baey C; Le Deley MC
    Eur J Cancer; 2011 Jul; 47(11):1647-52. PubMed ID: 21493059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. [New trends in assessment in anticancer treatments by phase II clinical trials].
    Medioni JR; Rycke YD; Asselain B
    Bull Cancer; 2000 Jul; 87(7-8):551-6. PubMed ID: 10969213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials.
    Bretz F; Koenig F; Brannath W; Glimm E; Posch M
    Stat Med; 2009 Apr; 28(8):1181-217. PubMed ID: 19206095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Simultaneously optimizing dose and schedule of a new cytotoxic agent.
    Braun TM; Thall PF; Nguyen H; de Lima M
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(2):113-24. PubMed ID: 17456511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Optimal two-stage designs allowing flexibility in number of subjects for phase II clinical trials.
    Masaki N; Koyama T; Yoshimura I; Hamada C
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Jul; 19(4):721-31. PubMed ID: 20183436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Minimization of sample size when comparing two small probabilities in a non-inferiority safety trial.
    de Boo TM; Zielhuis GA
    Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(11):1683-99. PubMed ID: 15160402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. An examination of the efficiency of the sequential parallel design in psychiatric clinical trials.
    Tamura RN; Huang X
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(4):309-17. PubMed ID: 17848492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Sequential urn designs with elimination for comparing K > or =3 treatments.
    Coad DS; Ivanova A
    Stat Med; 2005 Jul; 24(13):1995-2009. PubMed ID: 15803441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Adaptive two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials.
    Banerjee A; Tsiatis AA
    Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(19):3382-95. PubMed ID: 16479547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Monitoring rare serious adverse events from a new treatment and testing for a difference from historical controls.
    Fay MP; Huang CY; Twum-Danso NA
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(6):598-610. PubMed ID: 18042569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Setting the bar in phase II trials: the use of historical data for determining "go/no go" decision for definitive phase III testing.
    Vickers AJ; Ballen V; Scher HI
    Clin Cancer Res; 2007 Feb; 13(3):972-6. PubMed ID: 17277252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Bayesian design and conduct of phase II single-arm clinical trials with binary outcomes: a tutorial.
    Zohar S; Teramukai S; Zhou Y
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Jul; 29(4):608-16. PubMed ID: 18201945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Comparison of outcomes of phase II studies and subsequent randomized control studies using identical chemotherapeutic regimens.
    Zia MI; Siu LL; Pond GR; Chen EX
    J Clin Oncol; 2005 Oct; 23(28):6982-91. PubMed ID: 16192585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Phase II trials in cancer: present status and analysis methods.
    Lee YJ
    Drugs Exp Clin Res; 1986; 12(1-3):57-71. PubMed ID: 3732056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 28.