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.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18285601)
1. Is response rate relevant to the phase II trial design of targeted agents? Dowlati A; Fu P J Clin Oncol; 2008 Mar; 26(8):1204-5. PubMed ID: 18285601 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Phase II clinical trials in oncology: are we hitting the target? Ang MK; Tan SB; Lim WT Expert Rev Anticancer Ther; 2010 Mar; 10(3):427-38. PubMed ID: 20214523 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Novel designs and end points for phase II clinical trials. Adjei AA; Christian M; Ivy P Clin Cancer Res; 2009 Mar; 15(6):1866-72. PubMed ID: 19276272 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. El-Maraghi RH; Eisenhauer EA J Clin Oncol; 2008 Mar; 26(8):1346-54. PubMed ID: 18285606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical trials of novel and targeted therapies: endpoints, trial design, and analysis. Suman VJ; Dueck A; Sargent DJ Cancer Invest; 2008 Jun; 26(5):439-44. PubMed ID: 18568764 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Letter to the Editor re Yu and Holmgren. Traditional endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) may not be appropriate for evaluating cytostatic agents combined with chemotherapy in cancer clinical trials. Mietlowski W; Wang J Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Sep; 28(5):674. PubMed ID: 17449334 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Response surface methodology and the design of clinical trials for the evaluation of cancer chemotherapy. Carter WH Cancer Treat Rep; 1985 Oct; 69(10):1049-53. PubMed ID: 4042084 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Biology-driven phase II trials: what is the optimal model for molecular selection? Andre F; Delaloge S; Soria JC J Clin Oncol; 2011 Apr; 29(10):1236-8. PubMed ID: 21343554 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Surrogate outcomes in quality-of-life research: where will we end up? Tassinari D; Panzini I; Sartori S; Ravaioli A J Clin Oncol; 2003 May; 21(9):1894-5; author reply 1895. PubMed ID: 12721275 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The emperor's new clothes or the current practice of clinical trials for multiple myeloma in the USA. Ballester O Cancer Invest; 2008 Jun; 26(5):445-7. PubMed ID: 18568765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The development of phase I cancer trial methodologies: the use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic end points sets the scene for phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Calvert AH; Plummer R Clin Cancer Res; 2008 Jun; 14(12):3664-9. PubMed ID: 18559580 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An efficient design for phase III studies of combination chemotherapies. Ellenberg SS; Eisenberger MA Cancer Treat Rep; 1985 Oct; 69(10):1147-54. PubMed ID: 4042093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]