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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18669457)

  • 21. Problems identified with phase II stopping rules that employ response and early-progression rates.
    Anderson JR; Krailo MD
    J Clin Oncol; 2009 Feb; 27(4):646-7; author reply 647. PubMed ID: 19103727
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Progression-free survival rate as primary end point for phase II cancer clinical trials: application to mesothelioma--The EORTC Lung Cancer Group.
    Francart J; Legrand C; Sylvester R; Van Glabbeke M; van Meerbeeck JP; Robert A
    J Clin Oncol; 2006 Jul; 24(19):3007-12. PubMed ID: 16809726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Bivariate sequential designs for phase II trials.
    Conaway MR; Petroni GR
    Biometrics; 1995 Jun; 51(2):656-64. PubMed ID: 7662852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Phase II multi-step planning methods in oncology: comparison, recommendations and potential applications.
    Medioni J; de Rycke Y; Tournoux Facon C; Mallet A; Asselain B
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 May; 28(3):249-57. PubMed ID: 17113357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Alternative designs of phase II trials considering response and toxicity.
    Jin H
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Jul; 28(4):525-31. PubMed ID: 17428744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Phase II clinical trials in oncology: strengths and limitations of two-stage designs.
    Schlesselman JJ; Reis IM
    Cancer Invest; 2006; 24(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 16777694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies.
    Dhani N; Tu D; Sargent DJ; Seymour L; Moore MJ
    Clin Cancer Res; 2009 Mar; 15(6):1873-82. PubMed ID: 19276273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. A composite design for transition from a preliminary to a full-scale study.
    Lachin JM; Younes N
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(27):5014-32. PubMed ID: 17577245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Curtailment in single-arm two-stage phase II oncology trials.
    Kunz CU; Kieser M
    Biom J; 2012 Jul; 54(4):445-56. PubMed ID: 22610516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A two-stage phase II trial design utilizing both primary and secondary endpoints.
    Lin X; Allred R; Andrews G
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(2):88-92. PubMed ID: 17252536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology.
    Perez-Gracia JL; Muñoz M; Williams G; Wu J; Carrasco E; Garcia-Ribas I; Peiro A; Lopez-Picazo JM; Gurpide A; Chopitea A; Martín-Algarra S; García-Foncillas J; Blatter J
    Eur J Cancer; 2005 Jul; 41(11):1528-32. PubMed ID: 16026690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Stable disease is a valid end point in clinical trials.
    Tolcher AW
    Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):374-8. PubMed ID: 19826356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An efficient algorithm to determine the optimal two-stage randomized multinomial designs in oncology clinical trials.
    Zhang Y; Mietlowski W; Chen B; Wang Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jan; 21(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 21191854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Two-stage designs for phase II cancer trials with ordinal responses.
    Stallard N; Cockey L
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Nov; 29(6):896-904. PubMed ID: 18703164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Methods of joint evaluation of efficacy and toxicity in phase II clinical trials.
    Tournoux C; De Rycke Y; Médioni J; Asselain B
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Jul; 28(4):514-24. PubMed ID: 17331808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.